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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world operation. The description adds useful hints that results are public and use cursor pagination, but it does not explain pagination behavior, ordering, or limitations in any detail.

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?

The single sentence is front-loaded and has no filler, which is structurally efficient. However, it is too terse for a tool with a complex nested geography parameter and low schema description coverage, so it is not appropriately sized for the complexity.

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?

The output schema and annotations relieve some burden, but the input contract remains unclear: the required geography object has several undocumented fields and the cursor shape is not described. An agent could not confidently construct a non-trivial geographic query from this definition alone.

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 only 33%, with the nested geography object and searchAfter cursor effectively undocumented in the schema. The description loosely refers to 'complete geographic predicates' and 'cursor pagination' but does not explain how to populate mode, origin, radius, countries, subdivisions, distanceOrder, or the cursor fields.

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 states a clear verb and resource: discovering public party locations. It distinguishes the tool from most siblings by resource, but does not name or differentiate it from potentially related tools such as searchPublicListingSources or listAuctions.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or what prerequisites apply. The mention of geographic predicates implies a search use case, but the agent is left to infer that without explicit routing.

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