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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds what comes back ('event cards from the XP catalog with a fee-inclusive price preview') and its intended purpose ('browsing and navigation'). It doesn't discuss result limits, pagination, or empty-result behavior, but those are partly covered by the output schema and the limit parameter.

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?

Four sentences, zero waste, and front-loaded: what it does, what it returns, then alternatives and exclusions. Every sentence carries a distinct routing or scoping fact.

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 catalog search with an output schema, full parameter documentation, and clear sibling boundaries, the description supplies everything an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly, plus explicit negative scope.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description earns extra credit by illustrating the natural-language query semantics with concrete examples ('shows near me this weekend', 'Taylor Swift tour dates') and listing the entity dimensions the query can target. It adds interpretation guidance the schema's one-line query description does not.

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 and resource ('Catalog search ... find live events on XP') and names the concrete entity types (concerts, sports, theater) and search keys (performer, team, venue, city, keyword). It explicitly distinguishes itself from search_market, search_performers, and search_venues, so an agent can route 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('discovery: find live events'), when to switch ('what an event is trading at ... use search_market'; 'look up a performer or venue by name ... use search_performers or search_venues'), and hard exclusions ('Not for scores, news, standings, or non-ticketed listings'). Nothing is left to inference.

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