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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the description only needs to add operational context — which it does: a 50-result cap, the exact sort order (running now, morning, afternoon, evening, all-day/exhibitions, past), and the notable quirk that a suche query only returns the count of upcoming matches. It does not mention caching, rate limits, or what happens with invalid filter values.

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 core scope is front-loaded and the filter list is easy to scan, but the definition is delivered twice (German then English), repeating the 50-result cap and the filter examples verbatim. That duplication roughly doubles length without adding information an agent needs.

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 7-parameter, zero-required filter tool this covers scope, filter semantics, result cap, ordering and key return fields, and an output schema already exists so return shapes need no further explanation. The remaining gap is the interaction between bezirk and stadtteil and the behavior on invalid inputs.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and mostly delivers: alter is defined as child age 0-18 and noted to also return age-open events, thema is illustrated with concrete tokens ('regen', 'draussen', 'kostenlos', 'baby'), suche and lang are given formats, and stadtteil/bezirk are described as alternatives ('ODER'). It stops short of explaining the borough/quarter hierarchy or enumerating kategorie values, delegating those to kategorien_und_bezirke.

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 resource and hard scope: family events in Hamburg, for TODAY only, in Berlin time, with the covered categories named (Theater, Workshops, Maerkte, Ausstellungen, Sport). The explicit 'Keine anderen Tage' / 'TODAY only' boundary makes it unambiguous against any sibling that handles other dates or looks up reference data.

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?

Explains that all filters are optional and combinable, gives concrete examples per filter, and routes the agent to kategorien_und_bezirke for valid values. It also excludes other days. What is missing is an explicit statement of when to prefer this over orte_suchen/ort_info, but the intended usage is clear.

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