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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by describing the shape of a hit: each carries its kind plus a slug usable with get_event/get_place. Pagination and limit behavior are left entirely to the schema.

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 sentences, zero padding, and the most decision-relevant clause (searching across kinds when the kind is unknown) comes first. The follow-up routing information is packed into the second sentence rather than expanded into a paragraph.

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?

Return values are covered by an output schema, safety by annotations, and all parameters by a fully described schema; the description fills the remaining gaps (cross-kind search purpose, what a hit contains, where to go next). Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 four parameters (query, type, limit, offset) are already documented with defaults, bounds and enum values. The description only adds 'by name or text', a light hint about how query matches; it says nothing about type/limit/offset beyond what the schema states. 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 (searches) and enumerates the resources covered (events, activities, places, guides) plus the cross-cutting scope ('at once'). The phrase 'for when the kind of thing is not known in advance' lets an agent distinguish it from the narrower search_events and search_places siblings without opening any 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 clear selecting condition ('when the kind of thing is not known in advance') and routes the follow-up step to get_event or get_place via the returned slug. It never names search_events or search_places as the alternative for known-category searches, so the sibling-routing is implied rather than explicit.

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