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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description's 'Read-only... needs no API key' is largely redundant. It does add two useful non-annotation facts: results are sorted soonest-first with structured date/venue fields, and city must be filtered client-side on event.city_normalized. That is real added context, but the disclosure stops short of pagination or result-count behavior.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and scope before the sibling routing and the filter caveat. Every clause carries information, though the second sentence packs multiple instructions (filtering, asking the human, remembering) tightly together.

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?

For a filtered read-only search with an output schema present, the description covers scope, ordering, sibling routing, the missing-city-filter workaround, and auth expectations. Nothing needed to call it correctly is absent.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by clarifying that kind/genre/topic/date filtering exist and, more importantly, that there is no city parameter and city filtering must be done on the returned event.city_normalized field. That is semantics the schema does not provide.

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?

States a specific verb (find) and resource (events), enumerates the kinds covered, and notes ordering ('soonest first'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_latest, so an agent can pick between them without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a positive rule ('use this for anything about events') and names the specific alternative with its selecting condition ('use get_latest with product=events only for a raw newest-first scan'). It also tells the agent to ask the human about cities and genres before filtering.

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