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

Annotations only cover the safety/open-world profile; the description goes well beyond them, documenting return fields (local date, time zone, venue, price range, ticket link, provenance, freshness), the meaning of null price ('never published, never free'), source attribution and credit requirements, dedup behavior via other_listings, and coverage variability by country. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool finds, then progressively narrows to filter semantics and provenance rules. Dense but nearly every sentence adds actionable meaning; the source-attribution sentences verge on padding but justify themselves by dictating output behavior.

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 16-parameter tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by describing the return shape, price semantics and cross-source dedup. The main gap is the handful of filter parameters (paging, radius, country, unpriced toggle) that remain undocumented anywhere.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does for most inputs: zip/city/coordinates, dates, categories (even supplying the enum values Music, Sports, Arts & Theatre, Film, Miscellaneous and genres the schema never lists), keywords, artist, venue and max price. It leaves page, size, radius_km, country_code and include_unpriced undocumented, so it falls short of full coverage.

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 events) with explicit scope: US ZIP/city/coordinates plus date, category, keyword, artist, venue and price filters. It clearly separates itself from siblings like get_event_details or get_weekend_recommendations. It stops short of an explicit sibling-routing statement, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 real operating guidance ('say so when results are thin', 'never invent events beyond the results') and notes when SeatGeek is enabled, but offers no when-to-use-this-vs-alternative routing against the ten sibling tools. Usage context is implied by the filter list rather than spelled out.

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