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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it returns stable event IDs and uses cursor pagination, and it is scoped to 'current' cultural events.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the action, the target, the main search dimensions, and the key return characteristics 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?

Given 15 parameters, this description covers the core search behavior and return characteristics, and the output schema helps with return values. But it omits several optional search capabilities like relative_date and include, so the context is adequate but not fully complete for such a parameter-rich tool.

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 47%, so the description must compensate. It enumerates many filter dimensions (scope, city, date, local time, venue, title, performer, editorial), which maps to several parameters. However, it does not clarify important params like include, relative_date, limit, or page_token semantics.

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 ('Search') and resource ('current cultural events') and lists the main filter dimensions. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling 'search_catalog', but 'events' is specific enough that an agent can infer the target resource.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings like search_catalog, get_event, or get_performer. The description implies general event searching but does not state exclusions, conditions, or alternatives.

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