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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results are bounded to the venue's local today onward, and event-type data may not exist for a given venue (partial-availability caveat).

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and scope, followed by the filter hint and the capability caveat. No padding or repetition.

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 values need no explanation, and the description covers temporal scope, the event_type caveat, and the fallback to venue_profile. The only gap is that cross-tool routing (venue vs destination events) is left unaddressed.

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 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented, including the local-today default and cursor semantics. The description restates the event_type exactness and the temporal floor but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Find what is on at a named venue: dated events") plus a scope ("from its local today onwards"), so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It distinguishes itself from destination-level siblings implicitly via "a named venue" but never names destination_events as the contrasting alternative.

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?

Gives conditional guidance for the event_type filter and routes the agent to venue_profile to check whether the venue publishes event types. It does not, however, state when to prefer this tool over destination_events or other discovery tools like search_venues, leaving the primary selection question to inference.

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