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 clarifying it is 'listings, no booking' and 'Paginated', which tells the agent there is no booking action and that paging is needed for full results.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and returning-resource summary, followed by filters and the sibling pointer. No redundant or filler text.

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 exists, so the description carries return-value burden and does name the key fields plus pagination. For a public read-only directory search this is nearly complete, with only minor gaps (e.g., sort order, total count behavior).

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 the schema already documents all ten parameters including formats and constraints. The description's filter recap ('genre, capacity, PA/backline/engineer and live-music day') restates the schema without adding syntax or edge-case detail. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'public directory of UK grassroots live-music venues in a city.' It also names the returned fields (capacity, backline, PA, engineer, genres booked) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling search_available_venues. An agent can identify this tool without opening the 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?

It explicitly routes the agent: 'GigXchange MEMBER venues open to a gig request on a date are in search_available_venues.' The scope ('listings, no booking') and the filter set are stated, giving clear selection criteria against the closest alternative.

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