connects_events

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant value beyond that by explaining logical pagination over sparse upstream buckets and clarifying that scan_exhausted indicates an incomplete bounded search rather than absence of more events. This is precisely the kind of behavioral context agents need.

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 three focused sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence provides meaningful operational detail about pagination.

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 output schema handles return values and annotations handle the safety profile, while the description covers the main hidden complexity: sparse pagination and scan_exhausted semantics. Remaining gaps are mostly parameter-level explanations, which are partially inferable from property names and enums.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions next_offset and hints at personal scope with 'registered upcoming or past events', but limit, query, category, group_id, and offset semantics are not defined. Agents are left to infer meaning from parameter names and enum values alone.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource pair, 'Search/list events', and adds important scope detail ('registered upcoming or past events'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the singular sibling connects_event, leaving some differentiation to inference.

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 this is the tool for searching and listing events, and the pagination note helps agents use it across sparse result sets. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as connects_event or when not to use it, so the guidance is present but not fully articulated.

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