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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral facts those annotations cannot: matching is done client-side, and guest lists/attendee data are never returned — a meaningful scope disclosure an agent would otherwise have to discover by trial.

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, each carrying distinct information: purpose first, then input selection, then filter behavior, then data-scope caveat. No preamble and no redundancy.

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 does well to state what is not returned, and the schema handles cursor/pagination and limits. The only modest gap is the absence of any sense of result shape (fields per event) for a tool with five optional parameters.

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 the schema already documents city, limit, query, cursor, and place_id in detail. The description restates the city/place_id dichotomy and the client-side query behavior without adding format or edge-case detail beyond it, making baseline 3 correct.

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?

Specific verb+resource: "List public upcoming events from a Luma discover city feed" tells an agent exactly what is returned. The "discover city feed" qualifier implicitly separates it from luma_calendar_events and luma_event, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 gives an invocation hint ("Pass a city name ... or a place_id from luma_places"), which correctly routes the agent to luma_places for IDs. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this over luma_calendar_events or luma_event, so the sibling selection is left to inference.

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