Search events across maps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses little. It never states that this is a read-only sweep, whether it searches all maps by default, how the limit is applied or what the results look like. 'Without reading every map by hand' is the only hint at breadth, and it is implicit.

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, zero filler, and the search axes are front-loaded before the illustrative use case. The example sentence earns its place by clarifying commandCode semantics rather than padding.

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?

With 5 optional parameters, no annotations and no output schema, an agent still lacks the default limit, the behavior when no filter is supplied, and the result shape. The description covers the core search concept adequately but leaves these operational gaps for a tool whose structured fields do not fill them.

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 only 40% (name and mapId documented; commandCode, characterName and limit bare), so the description must compensate. It does partially: the common-event example gives real meaning to the undocumented commandCode parameter, and 'by name' aligns with the name filter, but characterName and limit remain unexplained in both places.

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?

States a specific verb (find) and resource (events) plus the search axes (name, command code, graphic), which cleanly separates it from the mutating siblings place_event, remove_event, copy_event and clear_events. The claimed 'by graphic' axis has no corresponding parameter in the schema, which slightly muddies the precision of the stated scope.

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 example question ('which events call common event 12') implies when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. get_map / inspect_cell for a single-map read). Usage must be inferred from the illustrative case.

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