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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing the snapshot/coverage limitation ('not a claim that other cities have no exhibitions') and the pagination mechanism via offset. It does not explain the hierarchical level semantics or what a returned city record contains, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and with zero filler. The pagination hint is slightly tacked on but each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

With six undocumented parameters, a three-value level hierarchy, no output schema, and a non-obvious parent_id relationship, the description leaves too much unspecified for an agent to call this correctly on the first try. It never explains what a 'bucket' or 'group' is or what fields come back, which is essential for a directory-listing tool.

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 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It explains only parent_id and offset in passing; lang, limit, and especially the level enum (bucket/group/locality) — the most semantically loaded parameter for this tool — are left entirely undefined, forcing the agent to guess the hierarchy.

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 and resource (list locations) plus a meaningful scope qualifier: 'covered by the current WeekendSeek snapshot'. The 'coverage directory' framing tells an agent this is an enumeration of known places, not a search. It does not name any sibling (resolve_location, search_exhibitions) to sharpen the boundary, which keeps it below a 5.

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 gives concrete usage hints ('Use parent_id to list verified localities within a region; page with offset') and a caveat about absence of data, which implies the right call context. However, it never says when to prefer this over resolve_location or search_venues, nor any exclusion. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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