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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing what comes back — bio text plus an exhaustive set of upcoming dates with page links — which matters since no output schema exists. It omits behavior for an unknown slug or empty date lists, and says nothing about result size.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the payload contents are listed in a readable sequence. The opening noun fragment 'An artist by slug' reads awkwardly and lacks an explicit verb, but nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, this covers the essentials: input provenance, returned fields, and scope ('every upcoming date listed on Lineup Atlas'). The only meaningful gaps are failure behavior for an invalid slug and whether large result sets are truncated or paginated.

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 both slug (with an example) and locale (with enum and an en default) are already fully documented. The description adds only the provenance hint for slug. It says nothing about the locale parameter or how it affects the returned bio and page links, so the 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?

The description names the resource (an artist, keyed by slug) and enumerates the returned payload: a short bio, every upcoming date, and the page for each date. It is clearly distinguishable from search_artists, which is named only as the source of the slug. The phrasing is a noun fragment rather than a verb phrase, which slightly weakens front-loading but not comprehension.

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 parenthetical '(from search_artists or search)' gives the agent a concrete workflow: obtain a slug from a search tool, then call this one. That is clear usage context. It stops short of explicit exclusions — nothing says to use get_event for a single date or get_venue_events for venue-scoped listings.

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