indico_search_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: results are permission-filtered to what the token's user can see, which affects how the agent interprets empty results. It does not mention limit/pagination behavior, which is only found in the schema.

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 short sentences with no filler and the core action front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to be fully front-loaded on constraints.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and annotations carry the safety profile. The visibility caveat covers the main behavioral gap; only cross-instance search semantics remain undescribed, a minor omission for this complexity level.

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 80%, with query, from_date, to_date, and instance all documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about parameters, notably omitting any hint that instance selection may span multiple configured Indico instances.

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 and resource (search events by title) with the matching scope (title matching only), which separates it from indico_get_event and indico_list_category_events. However, it never names those siblings, so the agent must infer that category listing is a different tool.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative named, even though indico_list_category_events and indico_get_event are plausible competitors. Usage is only implied by 'by title'.

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