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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results include an event count and a program link, but that overlaps with the existing output schema, and it says nothing about behavior when both filters are omitted (return everything, or empty).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core capability, followed by usage exemplars and the sibling link. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 annotations, a full output schema and fully documented parameters, the remaining gap is narrow: a zero-required-parameter search does not say what it returns when no filters are supplied, which matters for anticipating broad result sets.

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 goes slightly beyond it by establishing that the two filters are optional and combinable ('by province and/or by name or town'), clarifying conjoint use of text and province.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Searches the cinemas, theatres and other venues') and scopes it to the Webtic domain, with the two filter axes (province, name/town) stated up front. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling search_events and from the get_venue_* retrieval tools.

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 natural-language use cases ('which cinemas are there in Bergamo') and explicitly states the downstream purpose: obtaining the venue id required by get_venue_program and get_event_venues. That is an explicit when-to-use plus a named alternative, which is exactly what routing guidance should look like.

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