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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the KOPIS provenance, the 'not yet ended' exclusion filter, soonest-first ordering, and the specific return fields. It says nothing about result volume, pagination, or translation caveats for non-Korean output, which limits it to a 3.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the core identification (what, source, scope, ordering) is front-loaded before filters and return values. The return-value sentence earns its place because there is no output schema.

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 six optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: data source, default exclusion of ended concerts, ordering, and the shape of returned records. Minor gaps remain around the language parameter's translation behavior and result-set size, but 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?

Schema description coverage is 83%, so the schema already explains query, region, date_from (default today KST) and date_to. The description only restates the filter axes at a high level and adds no syntax, default, or interaction detail beyond the schema; the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource (K-pop, idol, band and other popular-music concerts in South Korea), a named data source (KOPIS), and a scope rule (not yet ended, soonest first). It implicitly separates itself from search_festivals by restricting to concerts, but never names that sibling or states the boundary, so an agent must infer the concert/festival split.

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 states the filter axes (artist/title keyword, province, dates) and the default ordering and 'not yet ended' constraint, which is enough to decide when this tool fits. It stops short of exclusions or naming search_festivals as the alternative for festival-type events.

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