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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description discloses sort order (soonest first) and pagination mechanics via cursor, which are genuine behavioral traits the annotations don't carry.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads what is returned and how it is ordered/filtered, the second gives usage and paging. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 enumerates the row fields (event, dates, city, country, venue, organizer, source_url, as_of) and explains pagination, which is what an agent needs. Minor gap: it doesn't state whether results are capped or how empty windows behave, but the definition is otherwise self-sufficient.

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 all six parameters (including defaulting rules for from/to and the origin of venue/cursor values) are already documented in the schema. The description only adds the cursor-paging hint, which is already implied by the schema's 'opaque cursor from the previous page'. 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?

States a specific verb+resource: trade-show/exhibition editions within a date window, returned soonest-first, with optional country/vertical/venue filters. The combination of date-window scoping, sort order, and filter dimensions makes it clearly distinct from get_event and search_events.

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 an explicit triggering context ('what shows are on in …' questions) and instructs how to page by passing the previous answer's cursor. It does not explicitly say when to prefer get_event or search_events over this tool, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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