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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, non-destructive) cover the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds value: it says it returns performer cards, not events, and that results come from the XP catalog, plus the pairing workflow with search_events. It doesn't mention result ordering, empty-result behavior, or pagination, but the output schema exists to cover return shape.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then triggers, then return semantics, then sibling routing and exclusion. Every sentence earns its place, 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?

Covers purpose, triggers, return type, and sibling routing well. The output schema handles return structure. Slight gap: no mention of what happens with filters like sport/genre or no results, but nothing essential for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100% with all six params documented, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g. what a good query string looks like, or how min_similarity interacts with results), so it neither compensates nor detracts from 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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: find a performer (artist/team/comedian) on the XP marketplace by name, and explicitly contrasts with search_events ('not events'). An agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening the 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?

Provides explicit trigger cases (user names a performer like 'Taylor Swift' or 'Lakers season opener'), names the alternative search_events with its qualifying condition, and states an exclusion ('Do not use for general events near me queries'). This is a complete when-to-use, when-not, and alternative mapping.

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