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

Annotations already declare a safe, read-only, idempotent operation, and the description goes well beyond that with real behavioral rules: cancelled/test events are excluded, 'null' means no capacity cap, and the three menu_status values define what start_order will accept. This is exactly the extra context an agent needs to act on the output.

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 long and dense, but it is front-loaded with the core purpose before diving into return-field semantics. Every clause carries concrete information (capacity, menu status, recurrence, exclusions), though the single paragraph could be broken up for scannability.

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 carries the full burden of describing the return payload, and it does so thoroughly: event fields, capacity semantics, menu_status meanings, recurrence, and exclusions. An agent has enough to interpret results and chain into start_order correctly.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema coverage, and the schema already documents 'subdomain' with an example. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 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?

It states a specific verb and resource ('Returns the upcoming published events and stops for one business') and clarifies the food-truck case ('these are its locations'). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining that the offering ids it returns are what start_order accepts, so an agent can tell it apart from get_menu and start_order.

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 implies usage by tying returned offering ids to start_order and by noting what is excluded (cancelled and test events), but it never explicitly states when to call this versus get_menu or how it complements get_business. Guidance is present but inferred rather than stated.

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