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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds useful behavioral context like 'across all sources' and 'every performance we know about,' but it does not disclose pagination, default behaviors (e.g., upcoming_only defaults to true), or potential limitations. This is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences: definition, usage, and example queries. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded. No fluff or repetition.

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 core use case with examples and clarifies the scope ('every performance'). It doesn't explain return value structure or edge cases, but for a search tool with 7 params and no output schema, it is reasonably complete. The lack of alternative guidance is the main gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it only hints at typical use cases (e.g., 'where' maps to city/country, 'when' maps to dates).

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 searches artists by name and returns every known performance across all sources. It distinguishes from siblings like list_artists or get_artist_events by emphasizing the comprehensive performance lookup, making the purpose specific and 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?

Explicitly provides when to use the tool ('Use this to find when and where a specific artist is playing') and gives concrete example queries. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the clear usage context earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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