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

Annotations already cover the safe-profile basics (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), but the description adds real behavioral context: `hasFloorplan` false means no map and the agent must never promise one, and each block self-reports whether there is `more`. The matchDoor note also discloses an optional sign-in path and tells the agent not to require it. It stops short of describing truncation limits or refresh behavior on a multi-block result, hence 4 rather than 5.

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 payload of the reply is front-loaded and every sentence is functional: block inventory, the hasFloorplan caveat, the `more` flag, and the routing rules. It is tight for the amount of routing it carries, though the matchDoor sentence is a slight tangent that lengthens the closing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out; the description still names the blocks and their `more` indicator, and covers the degraded case (no floorplan) an agent would otherwise mishandle. For a single-parameter read-only aggregate, nothing an agent needs to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents id, slug, name, and fuzzy short forms like "the stroll". The description adds nothing about eventIdOrSlug, so the baseline 3 applies – the schema does all the work here.

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 opens with a concrete verb and resource ('An overview of one event in a single reply') and enumerates exactly what comes back: summary, first page of booths, programme, live offers, raffles, and hasFloorplan. It explicitly separates itself from the per-section tools and from event_find_matches, so an agent can distinguish it from every sibling in one read.

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?

'Use it for the whole picture at once; for one section call that section's own tool' gives an explicit when/when-not rule with the alternative named. It also routes a distinct intent away from this tool ('For who should I meet... call event_find_matches'), leaving nothing to inference.

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