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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld safety, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: name lookup is a fuzzy resolution via RA search, and the payload includes follower count, country, links, plus upcoming/latest events — the agent knows this hits a live external site and returns a profile bundle.

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?

A single dense sentence with the resource and lookup mechanism front-loaded and no filler. It is slightly over-packed — the return-value clause could be split — but nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields and event sections, which is exactly the missing piece. Combined with 100% schema coverage and full annotation coverage, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description echoes the name-vs-id choice but adds no format or constraint detail (e.g. name-matching tolerance, default of 10 events, what an ambiguous name returns) beyond what the schema already documents.

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 ("Look up a Resident Advisor artist/DJ") and enumerates what comes back (profile fields, events). It does not name or contrast with the sibling ra_event / ra_venue / ra_search_areas tools, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

The description implies two lookup modes — name resolved through RA search, or a known numeric id — which is useful usage context. But it never states when to prefer this over ra_event or ra_venue, nor any exclusion or prerequisite beyond the id/name precedence already stated in the schema.

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