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 needs no restating. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: what each result carries (page URL, eventUrl for dated events, official link, 'checked' date), which compensates for the absent output schema.

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 the core action and scope before examples and return data. The second sentence is dense and slightly run-on around eventUrl/anchor, but every clause carries information that is not available elsewhere.

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 usefully describes the returned fields, and it covers scope and query intent. It omits ranking/relevance order and result-count behavior beyond the default limit in the schema, which leaves a modest gap for a search 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 coverage is 67%, and the schema leaves 'query' entirely undocumented. The description fills that gap by defining query as a keyword search spanning three content types and clarifies that 'city' is an optional narrowing to one city versus all. It says nothing about 'limit', the remaining gap.

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 (keyword search) over a specific resource set (every card, outing and FAQ), with scope ('one city or all of them'). This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling get_* and list_* tools, which retrieve by identity or enumerate rather than search by query.

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 concrete example queries ('Santa breakfast', 'splash pad', a venue name) that make the intended use case unambiguous. It does not state when NOT to use it or point to a sibling alternative (e.g., list_cities or get_events for enumeration), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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