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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior, so the safety profile is set. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: passing region/birth_year/gender changes the result set by excluding ineligible events and attaching a 가능/조건부 verdict plus reason, and it lists the extra fields returned (host type, recruitment period, D-day, source link, collection date). It also disclaims authority (original notice is the final criteria) and scope (no matching or proxy applications).

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and no sentence is filler: each one adds scope, eligibility behavior, returned fields, or disclaimers. It is dense and reads as a run-on of comma-separated clauses rather than clearly separated statements, which slightly hurts scannability.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so by enumerating host type, recruitment period, D-day, source link, collection date, and the eligibility verdict/reason. Combined with annotations covering safety, an agent has enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around result ordering and what happens when no filters are supplied.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema can't: the parameters are not mere filters, they drive an eligibility judgment that suppresses ineligible events and annotates each surviving one with a verdict and reason. That behavioral consequence of the inputs is real added value. It doesn't add anything about limit/pagination 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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: it finds local-government/temple/public singles meetup events that are recruiting or upcoming, limited to 19+. It also declares what the tool explicitly does NOT do (introductions, matching, proxy applications), which sharpens its identity. However, it never names the sibling tools (search_events, singles_event_detail) to draw the boundary 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?

Usage is implied by the domain and eligibility framing (recruiting/upcoming, 19+), but there is no explicit 'use this when…' or 'for event details use singles_event_detail instead'. An agent must infer the split between this tool and the adjacent search_events / singles_event_detail tools.

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