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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, idempotent), so the bar is lower. The description goes further by disclosing output-side traits the annotations cannot: the `id` field needed by apply_to_gig, the `unpaid: true` marker, and the meaning of an empty result. It stops short of return shape or pagination behavior, but the added context is substantive.

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-loaded with the core definition and the routing trigger, and the sentence about the `id`/`unpaid` fields earns its place. Mild redundancy: the search_gigs exclusion is stated twice (once as 'Excludes the imported concert directory' and again as 'concerts in search_gigs are not opportunities').

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 no output schema, the description does the work of explaining return-side fields (id, unpaid, budget_unstated) and the empty-result case, so an agent can act on the response. Only pagination behavior and the interaction between limit/offset and date filters remain unaddressed, which is a minor gap for a read-only search tool.

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?

At 67% schema coverage the schema already documents city, date_from, date_to and min_budget in useful detail, including the budget_unstated inclusion rule. The description repeats the budget/unpaid semantics rather than extending them, and says nothing about limit, offset, or how the date window composes. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Member-posted gigs that are OPEN FOR APPLICATIONS') and immediately scopes it to real venues/promoters with future dates. It explicitly distinguishes itself from search_gigs, the imported concert directory, so an agent can pick between the two 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 concrete user-intent triggers ('what can I apply for?', 'any gigs for me?', 'what work is going in Leeds?') and names the excluded sibling (search_gigs) plus the excluded timeframe (past dates). It even clarifies that an empty result means no opportunities exist, which is exactly the ambiguity an agent would otherwise misread.

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