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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which lowers the burden on the description. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by disclosing the scope restriction ('that have hosted a covered promotion') and the exact fields returned, which shapes agent expectations. It does not describe pagination behavior, but the cursor parameter and schema mitigate that gap.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first front-loads purpose and search dimensions, the second states the return fields and the sibling handoff. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a read-only search tool with no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields and routing to the related events endpoint. It is complete enough for correct invocation; the only missing element is an explicit note on pagination via cursor, which the schema already documents.

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 coverage is 75%, and the description adds value by mapping the search dimensions onto the parameters ('by name, city or country'), clarifying that q covers name/city fragments and country is a separate filter. This goes beyond restating the schema, though it provides no detail on limit or cursor behavior, which are minor since cursor is self-describing in the schema.

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 and resource ('Find arenas and venues that have hosted a covered promotion') and enumerates search dimensions (name, city, country). It also differentiates from the sibling get_venue_events by explicitly routing the id to that tool, so an agent can distinguish the search tool from its neighbors.

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 gives a clear context for when to use the tool (searching by name, city, or country) and explicitly points to get_venue_events as the follow-up for event data. It does not mention the get_venue sibling as the alternative for a single venue's details, but the search-tool usage context is unambiguous and includes a concrete handoff.

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