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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the data source (official city agenda) and a hard constraint (ranges capped at 31 days), which is genuinely useful context beyond the schema. It says nothing about authentication, rate limits, result ordering, or how pagination/total counts behave, which are meaningful gaps for an unannotated, read-oriented listing tool.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, followed by a compact args list where each entry is a one-line, example-driven explanation. Nothing is padded, though the Args block mixes prose with parameter documentation in a way that is slightly less scannable than a pure sentence-form description.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description is not obligated to explain return values, and it correctly stays focused on inputs and scope. For a 6-parameter, all-optional query tool with no annotations, the coverage is nearly complete — the only missing piece is any explanation of `limit` and of what happens when the requested range exceeds 31 days (error vs. silent truncation).

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it gives ISO date examples for day and until, explains until as a range extending from day with a 31-day cap, clarifies that query matches title/venue/description with sample terms, and provides concrete Portuguese category values that map onto the enum-less string parameter. The one omission is the `limit` parameter (default 15), which is documented nowhere in either schema or description.

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?

Opens with a specific resource and scope: "the city's official cultural agenda" with an enumerated set of event types (exhibitions, concerts, theatre, dance, cinema, guided visits, kids, festivals). That enumeration plus the Lisbon framing distinguishes it clearly from every sibling in the catalog (recycling, street works, parliament, transit), none of which deal with cultural listings.

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?

Usage is implied through the args notes — "Default today" on day and "max 31 days" on until give real operating constraints for a listing query. However, there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this tool versus another (e.g. a general open-data or search tool), and no when-not-to-use guidance; the agent must infer that this is the go-to for Lisbon cultural events.

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