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

The description discloses that results are 'lightweight rows' and directs users to get_event for details, which is useful behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it lacks details about default ordering, pagination, or whether q is required, and with no annotations available, the description carries the full transparency burden.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no filler or redundant content. Every sentence contributes meaningful guidance.

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 10 parameters, nested date_range, and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not describe what the 'lightweight rows' include, how to effectively use date_range, or mention list_facets for exploring facets, leaving gaps for the agent on a moderately complex tool.

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?

The input schema provides 100% description coverage for all 10 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'Combine `q` with optional filters' adds marginal guidance on how to group parameters but does not explain each parameter's purpose or formatting beyond the schema.

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 Toronto Tech Week 2026 events' with a specific scope and verb. It explicitly contrasts with get_event by noting 'call get_event for full details', distinguishing the sibling tools effectively.

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 advises 'Combine `q` with optional filters', giving a clear usage pattern. It names get_event as an alternative for full details, but does not mention list_facets or explicitly state when not to use the tool, leaving some ambiguity.

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