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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond them: the auth requirement, the relevance ordering, and the case-insensitive prefix matching semantics.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler; the account requirement and match semantics are front-loaded. Slightly fragmentary phrasing ('Venues by name prefix and/or country') but nothing wasteful.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-shape burden and does so adequately by naming the ordering and the series count per venue. Auth, matching, and scoping are all covered; only sibling routing is thin.

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 every parameter is already documented, including the 100-match cap and ISO-3166 pattern. The description reinforces q's prefix/case-insensitive behavior and supplies examples, but adds little syntax the schema lacks. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource (venues) and search axis (name prefix and/or country), plus the ordering rule (most event series first) and result content (series count). An agent can distinguish it from get_venue and search_venue_spaces, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Discloses a real prerequisite (requires a free Messe Atlas account, sign in when prompted), which is genuine when-to-use context. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_venue (single lookup) or search_venue_spaces, so routing among siblings is left to inference.

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