misp_search_events

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description provides minimal behavioral insight. It implies read-only search but doesn't confirm idempotency, rate limits, result ordering, or how filters combine (AND vs OR). No mention of output structure or pagination details beyond parameter names.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence with key information front-loaded. Efficient but very brief; could benefit from added context without harming conciseness. Appropriate for a simple search tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Missing critical context for a tool with 12 parameters and no output schema: no explanation of return format (event list vs. count), pagination behavior, default behavior when no filters applied, or how multiple criteria combine (e.g., AND vs OR). The complexity warrants a more complete description.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds only a general enumeration of filter types, which is a high-level summary already present in parameter descriptions. No additional semantics beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states it searches MISP events and lists key filter dimensions (IOC value, type, tags, date range, organization). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like misp_search_attributes (which searches attributes across events) and misp_get_event (which retrieves a single event).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as misp_search_by_tag or misp_search_attributes. The description does not mention trade-offs, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.