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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: it is free, publicly readable, date filters are inclusive and in Europe/Zurich timezone, date filters exclude unknown and recurring dates, it returns only currently visible/financed/moderated notices, and it does not provide booking or private data. This enriches the annotations without contradiction.

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 dense but every sentence adds value, covering purpose, parameter semantics, and behavioral caveats. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then systematically explains each parameter and limitation. Though somewhat long, it is appropriately sized for a tool with seven parameters and no schema descriptions.

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?

Given the tool has seven optional parameters, no output schema, and no sibling tools, the description provides all necessary context for an agent to call it correctly: it defines the search scope, explains each non-obvious parameter, specifies timezone and pagination behavior, and clarifies exclusions (no complete overview, no booking/private data). Nothing essential is missing.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage on properties, so the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It explicitly explains region/category as slugs from the catalog, eventFrom/eventTo as inclusive event dates in Europe/Zurich (not advertising periods), and after as nextCursor for pagination. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 (Sucht) and resource (Regiobrett-Einträge), and enumerates the content types (Veranstaltungen, Kultur, Kurse, Vereine, lokale Angebote) and the geographic scope (Ostschweiz). It clearly distinguishes the tool from any potential sibling by defining its exact search domain, and it notes that it is not a complete event overview.

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 gives practical guidance on when to use filters (region/category are slugs from the catalog, and searching without filter is for discovery) and when to use pagination (after=nextCursor with unchanged filters). It also sets expectations about scope (only currently visible, financed, and moderated notices). While no explicit alternatives are mentioned since there are no sibling tools, the guidance is clear and actionable.

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