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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, yet the description adds real context beyond them: the return shape (events plus nextCursor), the cursor-pagination contract, Asia/Jerusalem date semantics, and a prompt-injection warning that event content is untrusted source data. The untrusted-data caveat is a genuinely valuable behavioral disclosure; only the choice of timezone handling for consumers of the returned dates is left implicit.

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?

Four sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose and filter axes first, then the return/pagination contract, then timezone, then the data-trust caveat. No redundancy and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essentials an agent needs: what is returned (events and nextCursor), how to paginate, the timezone assumption, and a trust warning. It stops short of describing the shape or fields of an individual event object, which an agent cannot recover anywhere else given the absent output schema.

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, and the description goes slightly further by stating that dates are interpreted in Asia/Jerusalem and that the cursor requires repeating the same filters. The city/category/district meanings are already fully in the schema, so the added value is modest but real.

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 (Find) and resource (upcoming public Israeli events) along with the supported filter dimensions (date, Hebrew city, region, category, keywords), which cleanly contrasts it with the sibling get_event_details. An agent can tell this is the discovery/list tool and not a detail-fetch tool without opening either schema.

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 frames the use case (outing planning) and gives pagination guidance ('repeat filters with that cursor'), and the schema carries the exclusion rules (city vs. district). However, it never states when to prefer this over get_event_details or any explicit when-not conditions, so the routing guidance is implied rather than stated.

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