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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are 'public events' and that the default window is the next 7 days, but discloses nothing about result limits, ordering, or pagination.

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 compact sentence with the resource and the scoping constraints front-loaded; the return-value pointer is tacked on but costs only a clause. No filler.

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?

For a read-only query tool with full annotation coverage, complete parameter documentation, and no output schema, the description is sufficient to call it correctly. The one gap is sibling differentiation against whats_on, whose return shape it deliberately mirrors.

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% and all four parameters carry their own descriptions with formats and defaults, so the baseline is 3. The description's gloss on 'activity' (a circle's name or category) and 'place' largely restates the schema examples rather than adding new semantics.

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 (find public events on Zonori), plus the scoping dimensions: place, activity, and a default 7-day window. It references 'Returns the same fields as whats_on', which hints at the sibling relationship, but never states how this differs in purpose from whats_on, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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?

Usage is implied through the constraints given (public events, a place, next 7 days, optional activity filter) but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no statement of when to prefer whats_on or list_places instead. The agent must infer the routing.

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