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 genuinely useful behavior beyond that: package rows use date as arrival and end_date as departure, and results carry flags like guests-only and sold-out plus a page URL. It does not discuss ordering or result volume, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 calendar scope is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the package caveat, filters, and return fields in a logical order. The single dense sentence-with-parentheticals reads compactly but would scan faster as separate lines.

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 read-only filtered-list tool with four optional params and a full schema, the description covers content types, filtering options, package date semantics and the sibling hand-off. An output schema exists, so the brief return-field summary is a bonus rather than a necessity.

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 from/to, category and language are already documented with patterns, enums and defaults; the description mostly restates them. The only added meaning is that category values map onto the listed event types and that package dates mean arrival/departure, which is helpful but limited. 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 resource (the Hotel Mondschein event calendar: club nights, culinary evenings, festivals, sport and culture) plus date-fixed packages, and names the sibling get_club_lineup for club DJs. An agent can distinguish this from get_club_lineup and from list_offers without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly says the call can be narrowed 'optionally between two dates or one category' and routes club-lineup queries to a named alternative. It lacks guidance on when to prefer this over nearby tools such as list_offers or check_availability, but the core use context is clear.

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