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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a small amount of behavioral context (result scope is the agency's catalog, artists travel to any city), but says nothing about what a result looks like, how pagination interacts with limit/offset, or total-count behavior — relevant since there is no output schema.

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 with the catalog scope so the agent knows what inventory exists before reading filters. The long category enumeration is justified because it teaches the agent what vocabulary queries can hit, though it partly repeats the type enum documentation.

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 read-only search with full schema coverage, the description covers scope and filters adequately. The notable gap is return shape — with no output schema, the agent has no idea whether results are names, cards, prices, or IDs usable with get_artist, which matters for chaining calls.

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 each parameter (q, city, type, limit, offset) is already documented with examples and enum meanings. The description only restates the filter axes and echoes sample query words ('саксофонист', 'стендап', 'на английском') that largely duplicate the q description. 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 description clearly establishes the resource (artists for corporate events and celebrations) and enumerates the categories covered — hosts, cover bands, magicians, pop stars, speakers — plus the filter axes (type, city, keywords). An agent can distinguish this from search_places or search_cases by domain alone, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings or with get_artist.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Фильтр по типу, городу и словам' tells the agent the tool is for filtered discovery, and the parenthetical about stars traveling to any city hints at a city-filter caveat. But there is no explicit when-to-use, no guidance on following up with get_artist for details, and no mention of the sibling list_cities for valid city values.

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