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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses the fallback behavior when the event is not scheduled at the given venue (response says so and lists other venues in the province) and the data-freshness boundary (no dates, showtimes, or prices; those live on the webtic.it links). These are exactly the traits an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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 what is returned before use cases and caveats. Every sentence carries distinct information; nothing restates the tool name or the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still summarizes the meaningful response shape (venues, versions, per-venue link, not-found fallback with alternatives), which is what an agent needs to plan a multi-step answer. Nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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 baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining what venueId changes functionally — it switches to single-venue mode and makes the response contain the direct webtic.it link to hand to the user. The province/venueId precedence is already in the schema, so no extra credit there.

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 ('Lists the venues ... where an event is currently scheduled') and names exactly what comes back: available versions and a link per venue. The closing sentence scopes it against adjacent data ('what is currently on sale, not when'), so an agent can tell it apart from get_venue_program or get_event_details without opening the schema.

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?

Gives two concrete invocation patterns with quoted user intents ('where can I see X in Milan' and, with venueId, 'I want to see X at cinema Y') plus the negative case handled by the fallback clause. There is no ambiguity about when to call it or which parameter selects which mode.

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