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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context the annotations don't — the data source (public scrape of browser-visible pages), the returned field set, and the critical silent-fallback quirk where a bad category slug degrades to all categories instead of erroring. Rate limits and result caps are unmentioned but not critical here.

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?

Four short sentences, zero filler: purpose first, data source second, return shape third, the gotcha last where it lands hardest. Every sentence contributes new 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 enumerates returned fields (name, time, venue, ticket URL, category tags) and covers the one behavioral trap an agent would otherwise misread. Ordering guarantees, total result limits, and what an empty city lookup looks like are left unstated, keeping it just short of complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the category fallback behavior. The description reinforces the fallback and points at the `category_applied` response field, but that is response-level information rather than added parameter meaning — baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Find upcoming Eventbrite events in a city") plus the explicit source (Eventbrite's public discovery pages at eventbrite.com/d/<city>/...). It never names the sibling eventbrite_event, so the agent must infer that a city browse differs from a single-event lookup — clear purpose, but no explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by "upcoming events in a city, optionally filtered by category and/or keyword", and there is one useful exclusion ("Does not include attendee/guest lists"). However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over eventbrite_event, nor any note on how to narrow results when a city page returns too much.

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