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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the sources included, the fields returned per event, and the default that results start from today.

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 dense but front-loaded with purpose, and the return-field list earns its place because there is no output schema. The parenthetical examples are helpful, though the first sentence is quite packed and could be structured more cleanly.

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 8 parameters with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete: it explains what data comes back, where events come from, and the default date behavior. Remaining gaps, such as pagination or city-slug resolution, are handled by the schema or are minor.

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 schema already explains every parameter. The description adds thematic context such as kids 0–6 and seasonal/free pages, but it does not go beyond the schema in explaining parameter behavior; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific resource and scope: dated outings for kids 0–6 in one city, drawn from this week plus seasonal/free pages. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like search or get_page.

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 implied by the resource description ('dated outings for kids 0–6 in one city') and the default start-date behavior, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives such as search or get_page. An agent can infer the main use case but not the boundaries.

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