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

Annotations declare a safe idempotent read (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false), so the safety burden is lifted. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: results are ranked with fit scores and reasons, and it honours party ages and date. Return structure itself is covered by the output schema.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition and occasion list, then the return behavior. Nothing is redundant.

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?

Together with a rich output schema and annotations, the description covers the trigger, the ranked output with fit scores/reasons, and the party/date constraints. It omits sibling differentiation and geographic scoping (city handling), but is otherwise complete for a read-only discovery 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?

Schema coverage is 75%, so the schema documents most parameters (city, date, limit, format, language, city_slug). The description adds the semantic insight that 'party' affects results ('honouring party ages'), but does not explain other parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does most of the 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?

States a specific verb ('find'), resource ('theatre shows'), and the trigger condition (user has an occasion). It distinguishes itself from generic siblings like search_experiences by naming the occasion-based ranking. However it doesn't explicitly contrast with close siblings such as get_date_night or get_family_day, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it – 'when the user has an occasion' – and enumerates the occasion types. It does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use (e.g., versus get_date_night for a pure date-night intent), leaving some routing to inference.

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