search_events

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It describes the operation as a search (implying read-only) but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, requires no special permissions, or how results are returned. It also doesn't mention pagination or rate limits. The description adds some behavioral context (filters by contract, event topic, etc.) but omits crucial transparency about the operation's nature and constraints.

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?

The description is two sentences long with zero waste. The first sentence states the primary action and filtering options; the second provides concrete use cases. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and gives actionable context. 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?

For a search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it searches, what filters are available, and when it's useful. It doesn't explain the return format or pagination, but for a search operation that's less critical. The sibling tools are not referenced, but the description is clear enough that an agent can decide when to invoke it. It is reasonably complete for its complexity.

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 every parameter is described in the schema. The description adds a grouping of filters ('contract, event topic, address, or block range') that maps to the parameters but doesn't add significant new meaning beyond the schema. For example, it mentions 'address' which corresponds to topic_filter, but the schema already explains that. The baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and the description provides a slight overview without deepening understanding.

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's purpose: 'Search on-chain event logs across Dysnomia contracts.' It identifies the verb (search), resource (event logs), and scope (Dysnomia contracts). It also gives concrete use cases (tracking minting, transfers, Beat() calls, terraforming events), which helps distinguish it from siblings like debug_call or get_contract_state. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides context on when to use the tool ('Useful for tracking minting activity, transfers, Beat() calls, and terraforming events'), but it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternative tools. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, and there are no exclusions or comparisons to siblings. This meets the 'implied usage' level but not the higher tiers that require explicit routing.

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