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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: the response shape (events + nextCursor), the pagination contract, the Asia/Jerusalem date convention, and a security warning that event content is untrusted source data.

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 compact sentences with no filler: purpose and filters first, then return/pagination behavior, then the timezone and trust caveat. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With nine parameters, no output schema, and a pagination loop, the description supplies the missing return-value and pagination semantics plus the timezone and trust context. Nothing essential to calling it correctly is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters, including the city/district mutual exclusion and date-window limits. The description only restates the filter dimensions and adds a note about reusing the cursor, which is baseline-level value given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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'), resource ('upcoming public Israeli events'), scope, and enumerates the filterable dimensions (date, Hebrew city, region, category, keywords). This clearly separates it from the sibling get_event_details, which fetches a single event rather than a filtered list.

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?

Gives clear context ('for outing planning') and an explicit operational instruction for pagination ('repeat filters with that cursor for the next page'). It does not, however, name get_event_details or state when to prefer it over this search, so there is no explicit alternative routing.

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