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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds temporal scoping (open right now/opening soon) and ordering (soonest close date first), which are useful beyond annotations, but it does not describe output sections or pagination.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then use-case examples. The "go-to" phrasing is mildly promotional but still earns its place by signaling intended use.

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 six-filter list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, temporal boundary, use cases, and sort order. It leaves return shape and the per-section behavior implied by "limit" undocumented, so an agent gets the call but not the full result model.

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 all six filters—type, state, region, community, within_days, limit—are already documented. The description only indirectly echoes type and within_days and adds no syntax or default details beyond 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 names a specific resource—artist-alley and vendor/dealer registration windows—and narrows scope to windows open now or opening soon, with a sort order. It is clear enough to distinguish from a general convention lookup, though it does not explicitly name the sibling tools it is not.

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 supplies concrete use cases ("which cons can I still apply to?", "what artist alleys open this month?") and calls itself the go-to tool for them. It stops short of stating when not to use it or naming alternatives such as search_conventions or get_convention.

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