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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description discloses a key behavioral nuance: recurring events' spans are not single dates and the agent should read their recurrence. This adds operational value and tells the agent what to expect, going beyond the structured annotations.

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 entire description is one efficient sentence with every word earning its place. The core action is front-loaded and followed by the date-window default and recurrence warning—no filler or redundant information.

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?

Given the high schema coverage and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to call the tool correctly. It covers the destination parameter, date defaults, and key recurrence nuance. The only gap is explicit guidance on alternative tools or when to prefer other searches.

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%, so the description doesn't need to repeat parameter details. The description clarifies the destination parameter conceptually ('a named destination') and hints at the date semantics ('default from today'), but most parameter meaning is already in the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the exact operation: finding a named destination's events overlapping a date window, with a default start date. This clearly identifies the resource (destination events) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like destination_overview or search_destinations, none of which cover event search.

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 when to use the tool: when you need a destination's events over a date range. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use from context.

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