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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond the structured fields: the listings are "mostly imported, already booked" (data provenance/quality) and results are paginated. It doesn't explain pagination mechanics, hence not a 5.

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?

Front-loads what the tool returns before usage, then the sibling contrast, then filtering and pagination. Dense but every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

No output schema, but for a read-only search the description covers identity, scope, differentiation, filters, and pagination adequately. It could note return shape or default result ordering, a minor omission.

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 67%, and the schema already documents city, date_from, date_to, and window_days including defaults. The description only echoes filterability by city and date range and repeats the "this weekend" example, adding little semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 fits.

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+resource (search gigs) and immediately pins the scope: public listings of shows happening across the UK that are already booked, not work to apply for. It explicitly names the sibling it is not (search_open_gigs), so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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 a concrete use case ("what's on in Leeds this weekend?") and states the exclusion rule: gigs open for applications live in search_open_gigs. When/when-not and the alternative are both explicit.

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