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 value beyond them by disclosing the payload contents (line-up, address, times, tickets), which matters since there is no output schema; it stops short of 5 for omitting any auth or not-found 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?

Two tight sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and the parameter-source hint trailing. No filler words.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool whose annotations cover safety and whose fields are enumerated in the description (compensating for the absent output schema), this is nearly complete; only edge-case behavior such as a missing gig is 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 both parameters are already documented with their sources. The description's 'use the city_slug + slug from a search_gigs result' largely restates the schema, so it lands at the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 (get/fetch) and resource (a single directory gig) and immediately lists what it returns — line-up, address, times, tickets. The word 'single' combined with the explicit pointer to 'a search_gigs result' distinguishes it from the plural search_gigs sibling.

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?

'Use the city_slug + slug from a search_gigs result' gives clear workflow context and names the sibling that produces the inputs. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use clause (e.g. versus get_event/get_venue), so it stops short of 5.

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