search_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context by stating the exact-match requirement for filter values and the mandatory prerequisite of calling list_filters. This goes beyond what the schema alone explains, though it doesn't mention read-only status or potential side effects.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences with a clear purpose and an important usage note highlighted with 'IMPORTANT'. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure front-loads the core function without any redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, a complete schema (100% parameter coverage), an output schema, and the description's focus on the key prerequisite and filter behavior, the description is sufficiently complete. Minor gaps include no explicit mention of the default locale or that filters are entirely optional, but these are already covered in the schema.

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?

The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all 3 parameters, including defaults, examples, and the directive to use list_filters. The description reinforces the filter exactness but doesn't add new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 function: 'Search Microsoft Events with optional filters and free-text query.' This is a specific verb (search) with a resource (Microsoft Events) and scope (optional filters, free-text). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_event_details and list_filters, making it 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 explicit usage guidance: 'Before searching, call list_filters first to discover the available filter categories and their exact values.' It also warns against guessing filter values, with an example. This gives clear context for when and how to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly list exclusions for alternatives like get_event_details.

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