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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and world-scope are covered; the description usefully adds that results are catalog performer cards rather than event listings, plus the two-step pairing workflow. However it says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or what happens when no match clears min_similarity, so it adds only moderate value beyond the structured fields.

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, each doing distinct work: what it does, when to use it with examples, what it returns and how it chains, and when not to use it. Purpose is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 values needn't be explained, yet the description still contributes the key distinction (performer cards, not events) and the chaining workflow with search_events. For a six-parameter read-only search with full schema coverage, nothing an agent needs to select or 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% (all six parameters, including query, genre, sport, limit, min_similarity, include_score, are described in-schema), so the baseline applies. The description's phrase 'by name' loosely orients the query parameter but adds no format, syntax, or filter-combination guidance beyond what the schema already provides.

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 concrete verb + resource + scope: 'Find a performer (artist, team, comedian) on the XP marketplace by name.' It also explicitly disambiguates the output ('Returns performer cards from the XP catalog — not events'), which distinguishes it from search_events and search_venues without the agent needing to open a 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 trigger conditions with examples ('tickets to Taylor Swift', 'Lakers season opener'), an explicit exclusion ('Do not use for general events near me queries'), and names the alternative sibling search_events for both the exclusion case and the follow-on case.

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