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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It thoroughly explains that results are source-verified with sourceUrl and a last-checked date, handles timezone conversions (America/New_York), explains the semantics of `access` values, and describes the `townScope` behavior including the distinction between not-found and quiet week. It even details defaults (7-day window, 12 results). This is exemplary transparency.

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 long but densely packed with necessary information—every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then expands into usage nuances, timezone handling, access field semantics, town handling, and defaults. Despite its length, it remains structured and efficient, avoiding redundancies.

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's complexity (3 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is exceptionally complete. It covers all invocation scenarios, edge cases (like `townScope.recognized: false`), and interpretation of results (like `access` values). It provides everything an agent needs to use and respond correctly, including how to phrase responses in specific situations.

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?

Although the schema covers all three parameters, the description adds significant meaning: it explains that `from` defaults to today (East End local), `to` defaults to from+7, and using the same date for a single day/tonight. It instructs to pass the asker's own words for `town` and explains the meaning of `townScope.recognized: false` and `didYouMean`. This goes well beyond the schema's basic definitions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: providing source-verified East End events for time-bound queries. It explicitly mentions specific use cases like 'tonight, this weekend, next Saturday' and distinguishes from memory-based answers. This makes it distinct from sibling tools like 'things_to_do' or 'whats_open_now' by focusing on verified, time-bound event data.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('for anything time-bound') and when not to ('never answer those from memory'). It also provides detailed guidance on interpreting the `access` field before recommending an event, and how to handle `townScope.recognized: false` and empty results. This is more than just context; it gives clear instructions for correct usage.

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