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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: results are identifiers rather than full records, and a fetch call is needed to resolve them, which shapes how an agent should chain calls. It does not mention result limits or ordering, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 what the tool does before the routing advice. The clause 'for clients that need a generic search tool' is close to filler and could be dropped without losing information.

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 usefully explains that the return value is ids to be resolved via fetch. For a simple one-parameter search tool this is close to complete; only ordering, result-count limits and pagination behavior are left unstated.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines query as words matching title, performer, venue, city or category. The description's 'keyword search' framing adds only marginal meaning beyond that, which matches the baseline for a fully documented single 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?

States a specific verb and resource (keyword search over upcoming events) plus a geographic scope (Latvia), and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling search_events. An agent can distinguish it from search_events and fetch 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to search_events for date, city and category filtering, and indicates the follow-up step ('returns ids for fetch'). The remaining condition for using this tool — 'clients that need a generic search tool' — is somewhat circular, so there is no crisp statement of when this tool is the right choice on its own merits.

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