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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that results are taste-neutral, capped per call, and uses the same data as signed-out visitors. No contradictions or missing critical behaviors.

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 covering purpose, supported locations, filtering, behavior, and pagination. No redundant or verbose phrasing; each sentence adds value.

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 7 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers filtering, pagination, taste neutrality, and data freshness. It lacks details on return format but compensates with behavioral clarity.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining city fallback (Austin if unsupported), case-insensitive substring matching for query, ISO date formats, and opaque cursor usage.

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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Find' and resource 'upcoming live-music events' with clear filtering options (city, query, date range, genre). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'taste-neutral' records and public data alignment.

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 clearly states when to use this tool (searching for public live music events in supported cities) and mentions pagination limits. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or provide exclusions.

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