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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It describes a search operation (read-only), which is implicit but not explicitly stated. It does not disclose any side effects, pagination, limits, or authentication requirements. For a query tool, this is acceptable but not rich. It adds no behavioral context beyond the obvious 'search and filter' action.

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?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and lists all major filter dimensions in a compact list. It avoids redundancy and fluff. While it is long, it packs useful information efficiently, earning a 4.

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?

Given the tool has 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and all filter options, which is sufficient for an agent to construct a valid request. However, it does not mention the return format (e.g., a list of event summaries) or that it is a read-only operation. Since the siblings include a detail tool, the agent can infer that this returns summaries, but explicit mention would improve completeness. Overall, it is adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description and enums. The tool description essentially repeats the filter list without adding new semantics. For instance, the date format is already in the schema pattern, and the type enum is listed both places. The description adds no insight into parameter relationships, defaults, or edge cases beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb ('Cerca') and resource ('agenda de surtdecasa.cat'), and enumerates the available filters (zone, category, type, population, specific days, date range). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'cartellera' (cinema listings), 'detall_esdeveniment' (event details), and 'poblacions' (population lookup). An agent can immediately infer this is the event search tool.

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 provides context on what filters are available and implies it is the tool for searching events, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus the sibling tools. There is no 'use this for X, use cartellera for Y' guidance, leaving the agent to infer from tool names. The context is clear enough for basic use but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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