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 only states that the tool 'searches' and lists criteria, but does not explain pagination, result ordering, how filters combine, or what the response contains, leaving the agent with minimal insight into the tool's actual behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that is easy to parse and sufficiently concise. The one content flaw is the misleading 'program' example, but the overall structure is efficient and unwasteful.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should clarify what the search returns and how criteria interact. It only says 'search for events' without stating that a list is returned, whether filters are combined with AND, or whether results are paginated, leaving significant gaps for an agent to operate correctly.

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 100% and each parameter already has a detailed description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds a high-level summary of criteria but mildly misrepresents the schema by mentioning 'program', which is not a real parameter, offering no additional semantic value beyond the schema's existing detail.

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 uses the specific verb 'Search' and identifies the resource as 'VEX robotics events', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search-teams and get-event-details. However, it lists 'program' as a criterion while the schema has no 'program' property, introducing slight ambiguity about the exact filterable fields.

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 the tool is used for finding events but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives like get-event-details. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or a preferred search-then-detail workflow, so the agent receives no clear usage context beyond the basic purpose.

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