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

The annotations already cover readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the matching behavior (matches against name, description, or city), which is useful but does not describe result shape, ordering, or pagination. With the annotation safety profile established, 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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, and the use-case guidance is efficiently delivered in the second sentence.

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 simple search tool with two fully documented parameters and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. It does not explain result format, but with no output schema and the tool's straightforward nature, this is a minor gap rather than a functional one.

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 both parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'name, description, or city' clarifies what the query matches but does not add new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('event weeks'), and the searchable fields ('name, description, or city'). It further clarifies the tool's intended use case ('find specific conferences or festivals'), which distinguishes it from listing-oriented siblings like get_event_weeks.

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 phrase 'Use this to find specific conferences or festivals' provides clear context on when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but it gives enough guidance for an agent to select it for targeted searches.

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