Salsa Vida

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the default date window, null timezone behavior, and unavailability of inactive/private events. No contradiction exists between the description and annotations.

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 description is three sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct behavioral or availability fact. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers the main behavioral aspects, and the presence of an output schema means return values do not need to be explained. Still, it leaves some gaps: date string format is unspecified, the language parameter is not given any guidance, and sibling tool routing is left to inference. For a tool with zero schema-level parameter descriptions, these gaps matter.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter explanations. It does add useful semantics for date_from and date_to by explaining the default UTC window and user-local date usage. However, it does not describe event_id semantics or the language parameter beyond what the name and enum already imply, leaving the compensation incomplete.

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?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Read public event facts and dated occurrences within a requested window.' It also adds scope by specifying public data and the window behavior, which makes the tool's role understandable. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling search_events tool, relying instead on the name and read-vs-search framing.

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?

The description provides useful invocation context such as the default UTC date window, user-local date handling for today/tonight, and the fact that inactive/private events are unavailable. It also implies that the tool is meant for reading known event facts rather than searching. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer get_event over search_events or get_guide, so the routing guidance is mostly implied rather than stated.

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

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

Annotations already convey readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by clarifying that only public, existing published language versions are used, with English fallback. No contradiction with annotations.

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 description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and output, then states the language fallback behavior efficiently.

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 an output schema present and only two parameters, the description covers the purpose, the public/read-only nature, and the language fallback behavior. Nothing essential for calling the tool correctly is missing.

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?

The location parameter is described in the schema, including guidance to use search_locations. The language parameter lacks a schema description, but the tool description compensates by explaining that only published language versions are used, with English fallback.

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?

The description clearly specifies a verb ('Read'), a precise resource ('public Salsa Vida city, region or country guide summary'), and an output ('canonical link'). This makes the tool's purpose immediately distinguishable from the event and search tools.

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?

The description does not explicitly state 'use this instead of get_event', but the guide-versus-event distinction is clear from the resource naming. The location schema description also provides actionable guidance: 'Use search_locations to disambiguate.'

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

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

Discloses behavior well beyond annotations: default date window, one-year maximum range, 50-result page cap, 10-page cap, and the meaning of response_size_limited and pagination_limit_reached. This tells the agent exactly how to handle partial pages and when to narrow filters.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, date defaults, pagination caps, and response flags. It is dense but not bloated, and the purpose is front-loaded before operational details.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described in prose. The description covers the key invocation concerns: date defaults, pagination, and response flags. Minor gaps like exact date string format and explicit sibling routing are not spelled out, but they are recoverable from schema hints and tool names.

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 only 22%, so the description compensates by explaining date defaults, page size, page count, and cursor behavior. It does not enumerate every parameter, but enum-valued fields like dance, language, event_type, and salsa_style are largely self-describing, and the schema already documents location disambiguation.

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 and resource: 'Find published salsa/bachata events for a location and dates.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_event (single event retrieval) and search_locations (location resolution), so an agent can route correctly without reading schemas.

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 invocation context: default UTC date range, the user-local-date exception for today/tonight, and pagination limits. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the operational guidance is clear enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond them: case/diacritic-insensitive matching, localized guide fallback, and the meaning of response_size_limited plus pagination via next_cursor. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Four concise sentences, each adding distinct useful information: what is searched, how ambiguity is resolved, localization fallback, and pagination marker semantics. 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?

The description covers the key operational behaviors an agent needs: search normalization, ID resolution, locale fallback, and pagination handling. An output schema exists for return-value details, so the description is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does for query by explaining name matching behavior, for cursor by explaining pagination semantics, and for language by mentioning localized fallback. Only limit is left entirely to the schema, which is a minor gap given the description's overall coverage.

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 and resource: 'Find Salsa Vida cities, regions and countries by name.' It also adds unique search semantics (ignoring case and diacritics), clearly distinguishing this location-search tool from the event and guide siblings.

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?

Clearly implies when to use it: when the agent needs to find locations by name and get a source location ID for ambiguous names. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the domain distinction from get_event, get_guide, and search_events is strong enough that confusion is unlikely.

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