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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: 'nothing is saved or committed,' dates/venues are never invented, absent facts stay null and appear in missing_fields, and the AI gateway requirement with a clear error fallback. No contradiction with 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage, then behavioral guarantees and operational caveats. Each sentence earns its place, though the hint sentence partially duplicates schema 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?

The description covers input types, output fields, safety guarantees, error behavior, and prerequisites, and an output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out. An agent has enough context to invoke this tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions the optional hint and format values but largely repeats what the schema already documents; it does not add meaningful new parameter semantics.

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: 'Turn messy live-event material ... into a Universal Event Format (UEF) draft plus missing_fields, open_questions, and confidence.' It clearly distinguishes this from booking/staffing tools by saying 'before staffing or booking' and emphasizing 'Analyze only.'

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 says 'Call this when the user pasted event details and you need a structured draft before staffing or booking.' It also instructs 'paste text for now' and notes that file upload is a follow-up. However, it does not name sibling tools like validate_uef or normalize_* as alternatives or state when not to use it.

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