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 the useful fact that results are past (conducted) events with specific fields, but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or the effect of the 'limit' default.

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 dense sentences with no filler; what the tool returns is front-loaded, followed by the use cases and example queries. Efficient for the amount of context packed in.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does list the fields a case exposes plus example query terms. It is adequate for a 4-parameter, optional-only search tool, missing only result-count/pagination expectations.

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 baseline is 3. The example query strings ('новогодний корпоратив', 'Газпромнефть') illustrate what 'q' accepts, adding some value, but city/limit/min_guests semantics come entirely from 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 identifies the resource precisely — a portfolio of completed events — and enumerates what each case contains (client, format, venue, guest count, tasks and solution). It is clear enough to distinguish from search_places or search_artists by resource type, though the search verb itself is implied rather than stated.

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 explicit use contexts: 'для примеров «как это было»' (how-it-was examples) and 'для тендеров/КП' (tenders/proposals), plus sample query terms. It does not name sibling tools or state when NOT to use it, so no exclusion guidance.

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