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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavior beyond that: results are relevance-ranked ("strongest first") and each hit carries a page link, which tells the agent the response is directly usable for navigation. It stops short of stating result caps or pagination, which matters for a search endpoint.

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 front-loaded sentence with a colon-delimited resource list, zero filler, and the ranking behavior placed before the return note. The brand framing ("The Lineup Atlas search box") costs a few words but orients the reader quickly, so nothing meaningful 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 tool with no output schema, the description covers what is searched and roughly what comes back, but leaves open result volume, pagination, and empty-result behavior. An agent can call it correctly, yet cannot predict response size or how to page through many matches.

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%, with the two-character minimum on query and the locale enum with its default documented inline. The description only restates the query as "matching a text" and adds no interpretation of how locale changes matching versus page-link language beyond what the schema already says.

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 action and enumerates the entity types covered (artists, parties, festivals, venues, cities, promoters), plus ordering ("strongest first") and result content ("each with its page"). It reads as a cross-entity search that a typed sibling like search_artists would narrow, but it never names a sibling to contrast against.

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 breadth of entity types signals this is the general-purpose entry point rather than a type-specific search. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of the narrower search_artists / search_events / search_venues siblings, and no guidance on choosing this over get_city or list_cities.

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