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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description correctly reinforces 'read-only' without contradicting them. It adds useful behavioral context by explaining that dates are 'resolved' to the next edition and that items include the organiser source URL and citation page.

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 description is compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a short sentence plus one clarifying follow-up. Every phrase adds value, and there is no redundant repetition of schema or annotation content.

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 read-only list tool with six optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential choices: what the tool returns, what filters are available, and the special 'page to cite' detail. It is complete enough that an agent can confidently select and invoke it without further clarification.

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 the baseline is 3 and the description does not need to restate parameter details. It helpfully summarizes the filter dimensions (city, country, date window, text) but adds no semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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 names a specific resource ('Wine festivals'), a clear verb/action ('Filter'), and a defined output scope ('next resolved dates'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from its siblings, which cover transport, places, dishes, and itineraries rather than festivals.

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 states the primary usage context: this is a read-only wine-festival lookup filterable by city, country, date window, and text. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to avoid confusing it with the sibling tools.

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