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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It indicates a read-only operation that returns event details, but does not explicitly state it is read-only, mention any side effects, or describe the response format beyond the listed fields. For a simple listing tool, this is adequate, but it lacks explicit safety or constraint disclosure.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool.

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 covers the purpose and output fields but does not mention required parameters (city and edition) directly, though they are in the schema. It also does not reference prerequisites like list_cities for getting a slug, which is partially covered by the schema description. For a simple tool, it is minimally complete but could be improved by hinting at the edition parameter or usage flow.

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?

The schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning about the parameters – it only describes the output content (event, place, time, link), which relates to the result, not the inputs. No extra clarification about city slug, edition codes, or limit is provided beyond 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 clearly states the tool lists upcoming city events with specific details (event, place, time, link). It distinguishes itself from siblings like city_news (news) and other idea/room tools by focusing on events. The verb is implied but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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 implies usage (to find events in a city) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. It does not reference sibling tools or provide conditions like 'use this for events, not news' – such guidance is missing, though the purpose is clear enough to infer.

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