search_organization_events_by_date

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the local SQLite index and automatic delta sync behavior based on auto_sync_if_stale_minutes, which is non-obvious and adds value. It does not mention return format or pagination, but output schema may cover that. The description is transparent about the caching mechanism.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded with an example, and the behavioral note is succinct. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters and an output schema. The description covers the core purpose and one key behavior (sync), but omits explanations for optional filters and pagination. While the output schema may clarify return values, the description is not fully complete for a tool with many optional parameters.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain most parameters (city, limit, query, offset, status). It only indirectly references auto_sync_if_stale_minutes and implies date range parameters. With 9 parameters, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving agents to guess the meaning of optional filters.

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?

The description clearly states the tool searches organization events within an exact UTC date range, with a concrete example. It is specific about the resource and action. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_organization_events or search_events, but the date-range focus is implicit differentiation.

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?

The description implies usage for date-range queries ('Search organization events within an exact UTC date range'), which gives a clear scenario. However, it does not state when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving the agent to infer that this is the right tool for date-range searches.

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