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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains that events within 7 days include a weather forecast and that the 'agora' filter is resolved live on every call, not cached. It also clarifies the exclusion of season runs and day-granular sources for 'agora'. No destructive actions are involved, so transparency is adequate.

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 relatively concise, consisting of three sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and then elaborates on filter usage. However, the explanation of the weatherForecast and 'agora' filter could be slightly more streamlined without losing clarity.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the main return fields (date, venue, price, URL, and weatherForecast) and explains the filter parameter options. It does not detail pagination or error scenarios, but the limit parameter addresses pagination, and the tool is simple enough that missing aspects are not critical.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description adds significant value by expanding on the `filter` parameter's enum values (e.g., explaining 'agora', 'hoje', etc.) and providing a concrete example. This extra context goes beyond the schema, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.

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 that the tool lists upcoming events in a neighborhood, including date, venue, price, and URL. It mentions the additional weatherForecast for events within 7 days. While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list_* tools, the context of 'events' is distinct from other resources like movies or offers.

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 advises passing the `filter` parameter to narrow by time or price and explains how to use specific filters like 'agora' (live resolved). However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use the tool or mention alternatives among siblings, leaving usage somewhat implied.

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