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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-open-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the list refreshes once a day and is the authority for tickets and changes.

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, both front-loaded and purposeful. The first identifies the returned resource and sources; the second adds freshness and authority context without waste.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it says what is returned, where it comes from, that each listing has a link, and how fresh it is. It could be slightly richer about returned event fields beyond the link, but no major calling information 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not create confusion about inputs.

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: returns upcoming public events at Arcana from Resident Advisor and Luma, with listing links. The word 'public' also distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_private_event_offer and get_reservation_options.

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?

Clearly establishes when the tool is relevant: for upcoming public events and ticket/change authority. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as routing private-event requests to get_private_event_offer, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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