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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses non-obvious behavior: the corpus is Italian-language, results reflect what is currently on sale only, and dates, showtimes and prices are deliberately absent (available on the webtic.it links). The Italian-keyword retry strategy is exactly the kind of operational context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the sibling handoff, then the example queries, then the language/limitation caveats. The example-question list is slightly long, but every sentence still carries routing or behavioral information rather than filler.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it correctly doesn't. Combined with 100% schema coverage and full annotations, the only things an agent needs to call this well — language of the corpus, filter combinability, and the absence of date/price data — are all stated.

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; the description earns a bump by telling the agent to use short, distinctive Italian words for text and by implying the geographic filter is province-scoped rather than town. It doesn't restate the two-letter province code format, which the schema already handles.

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 (searches) and resource (films, theatre plays, concerts, musicals and other events currently on sale on Webtic), plus the platform and its market. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_event_details and get_event_venues as the consumers of the returned event id.

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 concrete when-to-use examples ('what's on in Milan', 'is Dune showing?') and states that all filters are optional and combinable. It also routes explicitly: the event id is what get_event_details and get_event_venues need, and if nothing is found, retry with fewer words.

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