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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the pagination detail ('paginated list') and the result schema (name, city, country), which complements the annotation-covered safety traits.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. It states the purpose, the searchable fields, and the return shape efficiently, front-loading the core function.

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 7 parameters and only 29% schema coverage, the description could clarify more. It covers the high-level search surface but doesn't explain the cityId/cityName/state/stateCode relationships or the pagination parameter (p). Given output schema exists and annotations are strong, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 low at 29%, so the description must carry weight. While the description enumerates search criteria (name, city, country, state), most parameter details live in the schema. The description adds that at least one criterion is effectively needed (implied by search), and the schema itself documents the country format. However, cityId vs cityName vs stateCode vs state distinctions are not clarified, leaving ambiguity.

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?

The description clearly states 'Search setlist.fm for venues by name, city, country, or state' with a specific verb (search), resource (venues), and search criteria. It also distinguishes from siblings like venue, venue_setlists, setlist_search by naming the search operation and its result fields.

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 identifies what fields can be used (name, city, country, state) and what results are returned, giving clear context. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it versus venue/venue_setlists, but the tool name and description make the search-vs-direct-lookup distinction reasonably apparent.

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