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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behaviorikuha. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: a combined result from two sources, the use of a coordinate as an alternative center, and the explicit no-venues-and-no-events is a valid, common response. It does not fully describe parameter interaction or result shape, but the additions are meaningful.

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 compact and front-loaded: 'Start here' immediately signals default use, then the return value and intent are stated in one sentence. The alternative-call guidance and empty-result warning each earn their place without any redundant wording.

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?

The description gives the agent enough context to invoke the tool correctly: what it returns, when to prefer it, and how to interpret an empty result. With no output schema, it does not describe the response structure, but for a read-only aggregation tool with fully documented optional parameters, this is an acceptable gap. Slight missing detail around time windows or the exact relationship between city and near is outweighed by the strong overall guidance.

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 schema already documents all five parameters. The description reinforces that 'city' and 'coordinate' are the two possible centers, but it does not add any new semantic detail about limit, radius, or include_events. This matches the baseline for fully self-documenting schemas.

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 names a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('the venues and public events around a city or a coordinate'), and clarifies this happens 'in one call'. It differentiates the tool from the relevant siblings find_places and list_events by explicitly positioning it as their combined alternative.

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 opens with 'Start here', states the core use case ('is there anything on near me?'), and explicitly instructs 'Prefer this over calling find_places and list_events separately'. It also covers the important empty-result behavior, telling the agent to report a quiet city rather than an error, which removes a likely failure mode.

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