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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), yet the description still adds real behavior: how the query string is decomposed (place, event kind, time; remainder matched against title/performer/venue) and that results cap at 10 with ids. It doesn't note ranking, empty-result behavior, or whether listings are cached, so it isn't exhaustive.

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?

Front-loads the geographic constraint, then the action, then the examples, then the return contract — a sensible order with no filler. The four example queries are slightly redundant given the parsing sentence that follows them, but they earn their place by showing language mixing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, yet the description still gives the cap of 10 and the id handoff to `fetch`. For a single-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only the relationship to `search_events` is absent.

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?

With one fully described parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema baseline is 3. The description does add genuine parsing semantics beyond the schema's "The question, in Turkish or English" — explaining which fragments are interpreted as city/district, event type or time — but leaves the 120-character limit and what happens on unparseable input unaddressed.

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 with scope: searches live biseyvarmi.com listings from a natural-language question, Türkiye only. It clearly separates itself from `fetch` ("an id can be passed to fetch"), but never distinguishes itself from the sibling `search_events`, leaving the natural-language-vs-structured split to inference.

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 concrete query examples and a hard geographic exclusion ("Türkiye only"), plus an explicit follow-up path to `fetch` for dates, venues and prices. It stops short of stating when to choose it over `search_events`, which is the one routing decision an agent still has to guess.

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