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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the geographic and topical scope of the reads, but says nothing about result ordering, pagination behavior, or what an empty result means — useful behavioral context that is missing.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler — the resource and scope come first and nothing is repeated from the name or title. Appropriately sized for a listing tool whose parameters are largely carried by the schema.

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 5-parameter, zero-required listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the domain adequately but omits the default window (today, +7 days by default via schema), the limit ceiling, and what the returned entries contain. Combined with annotations and a fairly rich schema it is minimally sufficient, but not complete.

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 60%: city, date_from and date_to are documented in the schema, while kind (13-value enum) and limit have no schema descriptions. The description's category list ('Концерты, спектакли, кино, выставки и праздники') loosely maps onto some kind enum values, adding a little meaning, but it leaves limit and the majority of enum values unexplained. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a concrete resource (concerts, plays, cinema, exhibitions, holidays) with geographic scope (КМВ cities and the края) and a date constraint, so an agent immediately knows this is an events/listing lookup rather than a news tool. It is clearly distinguishable from the news-oriented siblings, though it never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives such as search_news or city_situation, and no statement of prerequisites or edge cases. The phrase 'на выбранные даты' only vaguely implies the tool is date-scoped; nothing tells the agent when this tool should be chosen over its siblings.

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