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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that — only current public events with active upcoming dates — and pre-empts a false inference from empty results. It stops short of describing result ordering or distance behavior, but the output schema carries return shape.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, then scope, then the fallback sibling. Every sentence carries a distinct decision-relevant fact with no restatement of the title or 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?

Output schema exists and annotations are rich, so the description needn't cover returns or safety. It covers scope, trigger, and the sibling alternative; only the geo/radius pairing behavior and the default result count are left implicit for a tool with a nested object parameter.

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 description says nothing about any of the four parameters; the schema descriptions for term, origin.lat/lng, and maxDistanceKm do the work, including the 'never infer from IP' constraint. With 50% coverage, limit is undocumented in both places, so the description leaves a real gap rather than compensating.

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 verb (search) and resource (current public WellFred events with active upcoming dates) and scopes it geographically to Costa Rica. It explicitly distinguishes itself from wellfred_search_services / wellfred_render_services by routing 'ongoing offerings' elsewhere.

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 trigger condition ('Use when the customer specifically wants upcoming events or retreats') and names the alternative for the other case ('Use services for ongoing offerings'). The caveat that an empty result does not mean a provider never offered events is an explicit when-to-interpret-negatively rule, which is unusually well handled.

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