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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral caveat — that stars travel to any city, meaning the city filter may not exclude them — but says nothing about pagination behavior or result volume beyond what the schema's offset/limit descriptions already provide.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded scope and then filter mechanics. The opening category list partially duplicates the type enum descriptions, but it frames the domain vocabulary the query terms draw on, so it is not pure waste.

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?

For a five-parameter, fully documented, non-destructive search tool this covers the essentials: what is searchable, what the filters mean, and domain terms. Since no output schema exists, a brief note on what a result contains would have closed the remaining gap.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the type enum values and the city slug/alias handling. The description's example keywords ('саксофонист', 'стендап', 'на английском') overlap with the q and city schema descriptions, adding little beyond the baseline.

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 second sentence states the operation and scope precisely: filtering artists by type, city, and keywords (name, genre, ad-hoc terms). Combined with the title and the enumerated artist categories, an agent can tell this apart from search_places and get_artist. The lead sentence is more catalog copy than purpose statement, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Listing the filter dimensions implies the search/refine use case, and the example keywords hint at what kinds of free-text queries work. However, it never says when to prefer this over get_artist (single artist lookup) or search_places, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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