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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'Returns evidence state and original source URLs' and 'upcoming' to clarify the scope of results, which goes beyond the annotations. This is useful behavioral context without contradicting the annotations.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and includes return information and read-only status without fluff. Every element contributes to understanding the tool's core function.

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 no output schema, the description mentions the return of evidence state and source URLs but does not explain how the filters interact, defaults, or pagination. For a tool with five optional parameters, more detail on usage semantics (e.g., whether filters are exclusive or additive) would improve completeness. However, the essential purpose is clear.

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 carries the burden for parameter understanding. It mentions city, category, date window (likely days_ahead), and keyword (query), but omits limit and does not explain how filters combine or the exact meaning of 'date window'. The schema provides enums and constraints, but the description does not add detail for limit or days_ahead beyond what the schema shows.

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 clearly states the action ('Search'), the resource ('upcoming EventWave public event records'), and the filtering dimensions (city, category, date window, keyword). It also mentions the return of evidence state and source URLs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_eventwave_capabilities and promotion-related tools, which serve different purposes.

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 implies the tool is for searching/finding events, which is distinct from the capability and promotion siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The context of sibling names is sufficient for a clear usage scenario, but a direct reference to alternatives would strengthen it.

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