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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: the shape of each result (id, title, date, venue, genres) and the inclusion of a total match count, which hints at pagination semantics.

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 is listed and its scope, followed by the prerequisite and the return shape. No wasted text.

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 correctly compensates by naming the returned fields and the total match count, and the prerequisite for area_id is called out. Everything an agent needs to invoke this successfully is present.

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%, and every parameter including defaults (page 1, page_size 20/max 50, date_to defaulting to date_from + 30 days) is documented in the schema itself. The description only restates genre examples and the area_id source, adding little beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 ('List Resident Advisor electronic music events') plus the two scoping dimensions (area and date range) and an optional genre filter. The prerequisite pointer to ra_search_areas and the singular ra_event sibling make it easy to tell apart from related tools.

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 tells the agent to obtain area_id from ra_search_areas first, which is a real prerequisite a caller could otherwise miss. It does not explicitly state when to prefer ra_event (single event) over this listing tool, leaving that routing to inference.

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