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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully explains that descriptions come from the organizer or are generated, and that lineup is ordered with the headliner first. It still does not address what happens when neither city nor coordinates are provided, or whether city and coordinates conflict.

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 with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence packs useful behavioral detail about descriptions and lineup without unnecessary explanation.

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 explains key return semantics, but for a 9-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves the interaction between city, latitude, longitude, and radius_km ambiguous. It also doesn't state sorting or default behavior when location filters are absent.

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 input schema covers 100% of the 9 parameters with meaningful descriptions, so the description is not required to re-explain each one. It conveys only a high-level 'near a location' framing, providing baseline value without adding syntax-level details.

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: 'Search for events near a location with optional filters.' The final sentence reinforces its intended use for finding events in a city or near coordinates, making it clear which of the siblings (get_event_details, search_event_weeks, etc.) this tool belongs to.

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?

Provides an explicit direction: 'Use this to help users find events in a city or near coordinates.' It does not, however, mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools such as get_artist_events or search_event_weeks, so the routing is good but not exhaustive.

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