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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: results merge resale and primary inventory into a single connected order-book feed, which tells the agent what the returned listings represent. It still omits ranking/pagination behavior and how the default limit of 100 is applied, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger, then the differentiator, then the exclusion. Every clause carries routing information; none restates the title or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value description is unnecessary. For a 7-parameter, one-required search tool, the description covers the selection conditions, the result-set composition, and the boundary cases that route an agent elsewhere. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the schema itself is unusually informative (CBSA synonyms, date resolution against _meta.context.today, limit bounds), so the baseline would be 3. The description adds marginal value on top by enumerating what belongs in `query` (performer, team, venue, city, keyword) versus what belongs in structured filters, and by clarifying that multi-word natural-language phrases like 'shows near me this weekend' are valid input.

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?

States a specific verb (find/search) and resource (live events) plus the domain (concerts, sports, theater) and the facets it accepts (performer, team, venue, city, keyword). The 'by X, Y, Z' enumeration and concrete example queries let an agent distinguish it from search_market, search_performers, or search_venues without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly frames the trigger as an agent-facing condition ('Use when the user wants to find live events...'), gives two realistic utterance examples, and names the exclusions and the fallback ('Do not use for scores, news, standings, or non-ticketed listings; use a web tool for those'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered with the alternative named.

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