tie_search_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only states the action without mentioning whether the operation is read-only, requires special permissions, or has any side effects, pagination behavior, or output format. The term 'search' implies read-only, but it is not explicitly disclosed.

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 front-loaded with a concise one-sentence purpose, followed by a well-structured Args list. Every line adds necessary detail, and there is no redundant or filler content. The structure is easy to parse and appropriately sized for the 6-parameter 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?

The tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. While the parameter documentation is complete, the description lacks any indication of the return value, response structure, or potential limitations like pagination. Given the absence of an output schema, this leaves a notable gap for an agent to understand what the tool actually returns.

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 Args section thoroughly documents all six parameters, including formats (e.g., ISO 8601 for dates), defaults (e.g., profile_id default 1), and examples (e.g., ordering object). This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, providing meaning beyond the bare type and title information.

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 with a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('AD security events'), and scope ('within a date range'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'tie_search_ad_objects', which searches AD objects instead of events.

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 searching security events but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or when not to use. A clear context is present, but no exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and sibling list.

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