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

The description discloses key behaviors: no account needed, ranking method (most matches then soonest), included why_matched field, and city default behavior. No annotations are provided, but the description covers safety and behavior adequately.

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?

The description is concise but packs necessary details about ranking, authentication, and result content. It front-loads the main action and is well-structured, though slightly wordy in the first sentence.

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 no output schema, the description explains the why_matched field and pagination via cursor. It covers city constraints and ranking, making it sufficiently complete for effective use, though additional output fields could be mentioned.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that artists are the 'taste to match' and that results include why_matched. It also clarifies the city parameter's default and unsupported_city note, enriching understanding.

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 explicitly states the function: given user-liked artists, find upcoming shows in specific cities with ranking. It distinguishes itself by clarifying that genre-based discovery is not part of this tool, which aids selection.

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 explains when to use (when you have artists to match) and hints at when not to use (for genre discovery, use the web app). However, it does not directly contrast with sibling tools like find_events or overview.

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