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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere: default window and timezone, sort order (soonest first), and the 60-day exclusion rule with its override. It omits any note on pagination or what happens when the 30-item cap is hit, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler. Filtering behavior and defaults come first, and the return payload plus exclusion caveat follow, which matches how an agent scans before calling.

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 eight optional parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description carries the right load: it states defaults, timezone, ordering, and explicitly lists the returned fields so the agent knows what comes back. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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 88%, so the schema already documents lang, query, region, both dates, free_only and include_long_running. The description restates the date defaults and the long-running toggle but adds no format, syntax or edge-case meaning beyond what the schema says; only 'soonest first' adds ordering semantics, and that isn't a parameter.

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 names a specific resource and scope — festivals in South Korea running inside a date range — with optional filters and result fields enumerated. It separates itself from search_concerts by resource, but never distinguishes itself from get_festival or get_festival_picks, which also return festival data, so an agent must infer the difference.

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 context is clear: call it for a date-bounded festival search, with defaults (today to +30 days, KST) and an explicit escape hatch (include_long_running) for exhibitions/shows over 60 days. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, e.g. when to prefer get_festival_picks instead.

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