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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description reinforces this with 'Search for events', confirming a read-only operation. It adds value by specifying the data source (Ticketmaster) and geographic scope (26+ countries), which are not in annotations.

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 sentence of 20 words that is front-loaded with the core action ('Search for events') and efficiently enumerates key event types and filters. No redundant or irrelevant information.

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 the moderate complexity (11 optional parameters, pagination hints via size/page parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential filtering dimensions and scope. Pagination is implied but not stated; however, the output schema likely handles that. The description is sufficiently complete for an event search 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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all 11 parameters. The description paraphrases a subset (keyword, city, date, category) but does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the verb (Search), resource (events), and scope (Ticketmaster, 26+ countries). It lists specific event types (concerts, sports, theatre, festivals) and filtering dimensions (keyword, city, date, category), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like ticketmaster.events.by_artist or ticketmaster.events.nearby.

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 implies when to use the tool (general event search by various criteria) but does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternative tools. Given the rich set of sibling tools for specific queries (by_artist, by_venue, details, nearby, trending), more explicit guidance would be helpful, but the context is clear enough.

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