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

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations: default date behavior, UTC vs local date handling, one-year max range, 50-result pages and 10-page cap, and the meaning of response_size_limited with next_cursor. It also warns about pagination_limit_reached and suggests a corrective action. 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?

Three sentences deliver the core purpose, default behavior, edge cases, and pagination guidance with no filler. The most important operational detail (date defaults) is front-loaded, and each sentence earns its place.

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 search tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential call semantics: defaults, pagination flags, and filter strategy. It leaves some parameter-level details undocumented, but the core invocation and common failure modes are well addressed. A little more detail on date format would make it fully complete.

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 must compensate. It does clarify date range defaults, page size, cursor semantics, and filter narrowing, but it does not explain date formats, event_type, dance, language, or cursor value mechanics. The added value is meaningful but incomplete for several parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Find'), resource ('published salsa/bachata events'), and scope ('for a location and dates'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_event (single event) and search_locations (location lookup), so an agent can identify this as the list/search tool.

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 gives practical usage context: default UTC date range, guidance to pass the user-local date for today/tonight, maximum one-year range, and a directional hint to narrow filters when pagination_limit_reached is true. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the usage context is clear and actionable.

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