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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavioral context: the exact ranking order, that location is never inferred from IP, and that an unmatched US place in `near` yields a 400. These error and ordering traits go well beyond what the annotations convey, though auth and rate-limit behavior are absent.

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?

Everything is front-loaded in a single paragraph that leads with the tool's purpose, and nearly every clause carries tool-specific meaning. The ranking-algorithm detail is arguably deeper than an agent needs to select or invoke it, but there is no filler text.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully documents the return fields (total, href, matched, crafts) and their derivation, which is real added value. However, for a 17-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and only read-only annotations, the absence of parameter-level detail leaves an agent guessing at request shapes.

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?

There are 17 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Takes the same filters as GET /api/events' – an external reference – and lightly touches tz, near, and the Accept-Language header; it gives no format, units, or allowed values for lat/lng, radius, sort, when, online/inperson, craft, or tag. The compensation is far short of what 17 undocumented params require.

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 specific verb+resource: return at most 3 online events to show beside a local search, constrained by the search's words, crafts, types, tags, price and dates. This implicitly separates it from siblings like list_online_events and list_events by scoping it to the 'picks band' use case. The dense phrasing costs a little readability but the purpose is discernible without opening the schema.

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?

It gives a usage context ('beside a local search... a place with a distance, or a state'), which implies when to reach for it, but never names an alternative tool or states a when-not condition. An agent must infer that this is the pickup-band companion to a broader events listing rather than being routed explicitly.

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