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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context by stating the return fields (including CLP price, canonical purchase URL) and the default upcoming-only scoping. This enriches the annotation's safety profile with practical behavioral details, without contradiction.

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 sentences heavily front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: purpose, platform context, return fields, and scope. The phrase 'Tuki is also a boutique ticketing platform' is slightly extra but useful for domain grounding. No redundancy with schema.

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 search tool with six parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, platform, and return values. It explains the default upcoming-only behavior and the key output fields. The existence of an output schema means return structure need not be detailed here, making this fully complete.

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 83%, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds minimal parameter context (e.g., 'free text' hints at query, and it repeats include_past behavior). It does not compensate for the small uncovered portion, but the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Search') with a resource ('Tuki events and ticketed experiences') and enumerates concrete categories (concerts, festivals, parties, etc.). It clearly differentiates from siblings like search_experiences by specifying the Tuki ticketing platform and the exact output fields (title, type, start date, 'from' price, location, URL).

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?

The description clearly establishes the tool's purpose and scope (searching Tuki events by text or type, upcoming only unless include_past). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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