KidsEventsThisWeek

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations: discloses the 10-result cap, the distance-band ordering (0-5, 5-15, farther), the soonest-first tiebreak, the day-spreading behavior, the default 7-day window with a hard 31-day cap, and that only events starting inside the window are returned. It also explains that an uncovered ZIP is matched to the nearest covered city, which is a non-obvious behavioral trait.

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-loaded with purpose and location semantics, then conditions, then return shape — every sentence carries information. It is dense but slightly overlong, and the date-window sentence partly restates what start_date/end_date descriptions already say.

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 fully compensates by enumerating each returned field (date, start time, venue, price, age range, summary, link) and the ordering. Combined with the location-precedence and date-window rules, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning the schema lacks: ZIP takes precedence when both ZIP and city/state are supplied, and ZIP is snapped to the nearest covered city. It also explains result spreading across requested days; minor params like radius_miles and free_only are left to the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Search upcoming family and kids events near a US city") and names the source site plus concrete event types, so the agent knows exactly what this retrieves. It never mentions the sibling tools (get_kids_event, list_best_around_guides), so the boundary between search and single-event lookup is left implicit.

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 clear situational framing ("what to do with children this week, this weekend or on a given day") and explains the location input precedence (ZIP over city/state), which is exactly the kind of decision guidance an agent needs. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming get_kids_event as the follow-up for detail.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and non-open-world, so safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it enumerates what is returned and notes the linked page holds the full description and registration details, steering the agent toward the link for anything not in the response.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and how to construct the id. The return-field enumeration is long but earns its place because there is no output schema; minor redundancy with the schema's id description is the only waste.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so concretely (date/time, venue, address, organizer, price, age range, summary, link). Only error/invalid-id behavior is unaddressed, which is a minor gap for a one-parameter read tool.

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 single parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description restates the same rule ('the text after /event/') without adding format, edge-case, or validation guidance beyond it, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get the details of one event') and pins the scope to a single event identified by id, which separates it in spirit from the list/search sibling find_kids_events. It never names that sibling though, so the differentiation is inferred rather than asserted.

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?

Usage is only implied: the id-derivation hint ('the last part of the event link') suggests this is called after obtaining an event link from a listing or find_kids_events. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus find_kids_events, nor any prerequisite or exclusion.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return payload (guide title and link) and the result cap (up to 12), which annotations cannot express. It does not cover behavior when the city has no guides, a minor gap.

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?

Two tight sentences: the scoping and use case come first, the return shape last. Every clause carries information — audience site, subject matter, contrast with weekly events, and result limit — with no 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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the returned fields and the 12-item cap, and it pins the domain to US cities. Only an empty-result or error case is unaddressed, which is a small omission for a two-parameter read tool whose annotations are already rich.

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% and both parameters (city, state) are documented in the schema with format hints, so the baseline is 3. The description only reiterates that the city is a US city and adds no new syntax or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Specific verb+resource (list the "Best Around" guides) with explicit scope limited to a US city, plus a concrete enumeration of what the guides cover (parks, playgrounds, splash pads, museums, lights). The clause "rather than events on a given week" distinguishes it from find_kids_events without the agent needing to open either 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?

Explicitly states the use case ("finding places to go in general") and the exclusion ("rather than events on a given week"), which routes the agent away from the event-listing sibling. It stops short of naming find_kids_events as the alternative for weekly events, so the routing is implied by category rather than by tool name.

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