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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/destructive) by disclosing data provenance ('only what the event's own listing published'), deduplication behavior with sources retained, staleness labelling and last-checked timestamps, and advising verification on the event page. That is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loads the selection rule and query examples, and the return-behavior sentence earns its place. It is somewhat repetitive in enumerating event types twice (shiur/concert/holiday then concerts/shiurim/kids' programs), which costs a bit of tightness.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no restating, and the description still adds provenance and staleness context. The main gap is that several filter parameters (category, limit, radius semantics, include_stale) are not illuminated despite low schema coverage.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage across 12 parameters, the description should carry more weight, yet it only implies location, date range, free/price filters. It leaves q, category, limit, radius_m, include_stale and the lat/lng vs. location distinction unexplained 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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (Jewish community events) with a clear scope: events near a location within a date range. The named event types and example queries make it easy to distinguish from siblings like jewish_calendar and find_services.

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?

Explicitly positions itself as the 'first choice for any Jewish event' and supplies concrete example queries that show the intended context of use. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead for adjacent needs (e.g., services vs. events), so it is clear but not fully routing.

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