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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false is consistent with the stated beep.me closed catalog. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it names the data source, states the result shape (id, date, link), and warns that only public events exist in the catalog. It stops short of covering empty-result behavior or catalog staleness.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and scope, then the trigger, then the exclusion. The event-type list is long but each item disambiguates a real category rather than padding; nothing is wasted.

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 usefully summarizes the return shape, and with only three well-documented parameters the surface is small. Minor gaps remain around what happens when no event matches and how limit interacts with recency ordering, but nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 query, limit and country are already documented in detail, including the keyword-style example and the country-ranking rule. The description adds no parameter-level meaning of its own, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Find when a public event happens") and enumerates the concrete classes of events covered (match, film release, TV premiere, concert, festival, sale, deadline, holiday). An agent can immediately tell this is an event-date lookup and not a reminder or calendar operation.

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 an explicit trigger ("Call it whenever the user asks when something people wait for will happen, or asks to be reminded or notified about it") and an explicit exclusion with a named alternative destination ("Not for personal appointments or private to-dos... use the user's own calendar or reminders for those"). Both the use case and the routing-away condition are stated.

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