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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the safety burden is lifted. The description adds real behavioral context on top: the result set is limited to upcoming public events and each result carries date, venue, price and a wullup.com link. It does not mention result-count defaults or rate/coverage limits, but that is a minor omission against annotations that already cover the risk profile.

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, front-loaded with the trigger condition before the exclusions, with no filler. The category enumeration partially restates the schema enum, which adds length without adding much new information, but it does map to natural user phrasing, so it mostly 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 9-parameter, all-optional, open-domain search tool with a declared output schema, the description covers the essentials: geographic scope, temporal scope (upcoming only), covered categories, what each result contains, and explicit out-of-scope uses. Return-value detail is backed by the output schema, so nothing an agent needs to invoke 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 coverage is 78%, near the high band, so the schema already documents most parameters (including enum semantics for `when`, `price`, `language` and the `city` omission rule). The description adds indirect mapping of user intent to the date parameters ('for a day, a weekend or a date range') but says nothing about `limit`, `query` syntax, or how `when` is overridden by `from`. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (find/search) and resource (events in Germany) and enumerates the covered event types (concerts, parties, club nights, festivals, workshops, markets, community events). It also pins the geography and the return set to 'upcoming public events', so an agent knows exactly what this tool yields without inspecting anything else.

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?

Explicit positive trigger ('when the user wants to find events in Germany...in a city or near them, for a day, a weekend or a date range') plus three negative exclusions: no ticket buying, no non-German events, no past events. This is exactly the when/when-not structure that lets an agent route confidently.

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