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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds real context beyond them: it returns a concise grounded answer plus cited products with booking URLs, and is intent-aware across budget/audience/timeframe. It omits latency or grounding-source caveats, but the annotation bar is low and this exceeds it.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the triggering condition, then output shape, then the intent-handling note. Little waste, though the trailing 'via the concierge seam' is internal jargon of marginal value to an agent.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description still characterizes the output (concise grounded answer + cited products with booking URLs). Combined with the clear trigger and annotations, an agent has what it needs to call it, missing only explicit sibling routing.

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%, so the schema fully documents city, city_slug, limit, format, language, and question. The description adds only the abstract notion of intent-awareness (budget, audience, timeframe), which maps to the free-text question rather than adding concrete parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a specific verb ('asks a free-text theatre question') and resource, and illustrates with concrete examples (best musical for kids, romantic show tonight, cheap comedy). It is clearly the natural-language Q&A entry point versus the structured search/recommend siblings, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

It states a clear trigger ('Use this when the user asks a free-text theatre question') and reinforces it with examples. However, it offers no when-not guidance or routing to siblings like search_experiences, find_theatre_for_occasion, or get_show_guide, so the agent must infer boundaries.

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