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

Annotations already cover the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's main added value is the tool-chaining requirement that event_id comes from search_events. It says nothing about ordering, empty results, or pagination behavior for events with many locations.

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 short sentences, each doing distinct work: definition, use-case routing, and prerequisite. The most important information (what it lists) leads, with no filler or repetition.

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 a rich output schema and complete annotations, the description needn't explain return shape, and it correctly covers the prerequisite chain via search_events. Only minor gaps remain around result volume/edge cases, which the output schema largely absorbs.

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% and the single parameter's description already states 'Event UUID returned by search_events.' The description only restates and emphasizes that provenance, adding no format or validation detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (list locations) and immediately disambiguates what a 'location' is with concrete examples (rooms, halls, stages, venues). It also distinguishes itself from the mutation siblings by framing the read-only scope: names and ids of configured locations for an event.

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 declares itself 'the primary tool for location questions' and enumerates the question shapes it answers (count, names, ids). It stops short of naming the mutation alternatives (create_locations, update_location, delete_location) or stating exclusions, so it is strong but not fully routing.

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