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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses concrete operational traits: a hard cap of 20 events per call, pagination via offset/next_offset, the total count in the response, and the default catalogue window. It also warns that the `when` shortcut takes precedence over explicit dates, which is the kind of precedence rule an agent could easily get wrong.

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?

Core function, filters, and return/pagination behavior are front-loaded in a compact block with no filler sentences. The fully duplicated Polish translation adds length that an English-reading agent gains nothing from, though it is a deliberate bilingual choice.

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 10 parameters, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description still supplies what structured fields cannot: default date window, page size cap, pagination contract, and total count. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this search 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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented with format, enum values and defaults (including the `when` override and limit max 20). The description's filter enumeration (municipality, voivodeship, dates, when, category, free admission, title phrase) largely restates the schema rather than adding new syntax or naming conventions, so the baseline 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?

The opening clause names a specific verb and resource – search upcoming local events in Poland on GdzieZabawa.pl – and the example questions (weekend plans, dożynki, free kids' events in Kraków) make the scope concrete. The resource is clearly distinct from the siblings (single-event lookup, category reference, attractions), so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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?

It gives clear usage context via natural-language question examples and states the default date window (about the next two months), which steers correct default behavior. It never explicitly says when NOT to use it or points to get_event/list_categories/municipality_attractions as alternatives, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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