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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context about data provenance ('across all sources') and field semantics ('nullable mbid and cross-provider-verified spotify_id'), but it also claims 'every performance we know about' without acknowledging the default upcoming_only=true filter, which could mislead an agent into thinking all historical performances are returned. This is a notable gap.

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, each earning its place: the first states the action and scope, the second adds stable-matching fields relevant for agent decision-making, and the third gives concrete usage examples. Information is front-loaded, with no filler 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?

For a tool without an output schema, the description should clarify the return shape. It mentions artist records with mbid and spotify_id and implies the output answers when/where questions, but it does not explicitly state that results include embedded performance details (dates, venues, cities) or how to control pagination and default filters. Given the tool's 7 parameters and no output schema, this is a moderate gap that the description only partially fills.

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 every parameter is already documented. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond implying that artist_name is the core search term through examples. It does not elaborate on date formats, filter combinations, or the effect of upcoming_only, so it does not exceed the baseline of 3.

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?

Description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Search artists by name and get every performance we know about, across all sources.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_artists (which presumably lists all artists) and get_artist (which returns a single artist) by emphasizing name-based search with performance results. The example questions ('When does Bonobo play?') reinforce this exact purpose.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to find when and where a specific artist is playing' and provides three example queries, giving clear context for when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., 'for a known artist ID, use get_artist'), so it stops short of a full 5.

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