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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds substantive behavioral context beyond that: it enumerates the return payload (use-case pages, quotable descriptions, licensed screenshots/videos, demo link) and signals a no-signup, demo-ready flow. It still says nothing about matching behavior on vague input or result limits.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, and the parenthetical examples do real work by showing the required input format. Every clause contributes: examples, matching results, artifact types, and demo link.

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 no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does by listing the artifact types an agent will receive. It omits edge-case behavior (no match found, multiple matches, ambiguity handling), which is the only meaningful gap for a two-parameter read tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented structurally, setting the baseline at 3. The description reinforces the 'description' parameter with concrete event examples, but adds no new detail for 'lang', which the schema fully covers on its own.

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+resource: describe an event, get the matching QR Wall use-case pages plus media and a demo link. The verb/resource pair is unambiguous and the examples make the input shape concrete. It loses a point for not distinguishing itself from siblings, especially list_demos, whose scope appears to overlap with the 'no-signup demo link' this tool returns.

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?

Usage is implied by the input phrasing ('describe an event'), which tells the agent what to supply but not when to choose this tool over compare, get_facts, get_pricing, or list_demos. No exclusions, prerequisites, or fallback behavior are stated.

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