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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: each event is checked against the page it came from, and results carry a Suumer page plus the original source. It doesn't discuss coverage gaps or rate limits, keeping it short of a 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with scope, then inputs, then return shape. The event-type parenthetical earns its place by showing breadth without listing the whole enum, and nothing is repeated.

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 does the needed work by naming the return fields (suumerPage, original source page) and the verification step. Only minor gaps remain, such as result volume or how verification failures appear.

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%, so the three parameters (town format, YYYY-MM-DD date with today-default, kind enum with leave-out default) are fully documented in structured data. The description restates the town formats and defaults but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource (find things to do / events) with tight scope: one day, one US town. The parenthetical event-type list and the verification claim make the tool's job unambiguous, and there are no siblings to confuse it with.

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?

It makes clear the required inputs (town plus date) and the optional kind, and documents defaults in prose ("Leave it out for today in that town", kind omission = everything). It does not state when NOT to use the tool, but there are no alternatives to route against.

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