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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: data provenance (30 cities' and counties' own public calendars), the two-week horizon, the ordering rule, and that each result links to its official 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the scope, then geography/sources, then ordering. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess; nothing is filler.

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 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (events with official links), the geographic and temporal boundary, and ordering. Minor gaps remain: no mention of default limit or result-count behavior, and no hint that coverage depends on which calendars publish.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value the schema does not: supplying a position switches results to closest-first within a radius, and absent a position they come soonest-first. That explains the interaction of lat/lon/miles in a way the isolated field descriptions cannot.

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 resource (local events) with explicit scope: Florida, next two weeks, and concrete event categories (festivals, concerts, farmers markets, boat shows, library/park events). The naming of ~30 city/county source calendars and regions (Tampa Bay, Orlando, both coasts, the Keys, the Panhandle) makes it unmistakable against any sibling marine/weather tool.

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?

Establishes the usage context clearly (what's on, next two weeks) and describes the two operating modes: radius-sorted when a position is supplied, chronological otherwise. It does not name an alternative tool or an explicit 'don't use this for X', though no sibling plausibly competes for event queries.

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