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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states that only publicly published events are returned and that results are paged, which are meaningful behavioral traits. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or return format, but for a search tool the disclosed traits are the most relevant.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and keeps additional guidance compact. The parenthetical and platform context add a little length, but the overall structure is scannable and directly useful for a complex search API.

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?

The description covers the main search modes, pagination, sorting, proximity-specific behavior, and the published-only constraint. There is no output schema and the exact return shape is not described, but the input side is highly documented and the description is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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 the parameter fields already carry detailed meaning. The tool description adds high-level grouping and reiterates the NearLatitude/NearLongitude/RadiusKm combination and DistanceAscending guidance, but it does not add significant new semantic information beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search for published flea market events (loppemarkeder) on Svapp'. It also names the platform and distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_event and search_articles by focusing on event search.

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?

Clear context is provided for when to use the tool: free-text search, date range filters, and proximity search, with specific instructions to use Page/PageSize and DistanceAscending for proximity. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the supported modes are unambiguously described.

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