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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses result ordering ('most imminent first'), return contents (booking link out, gig-page url to cite), and the commercial constraint ('gigstamp does not sell tickets'). This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs beyond the schema.

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?

A single dense paragraph with the core search action and coverage front-loaded, and every clause carries information. The parenthetical 'the local grassroots scene is front and centre, but coverage aims to be complete' is mildly promotional and slightly hedged, keeping it short of a 5.

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 an 11-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers content scope, ordering, returned fields, and the supported-city constraint, so an agent can call it and interpret results without further inference. Nothing essential 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 91%, so parameters are already well documented, and the description largely restates the filter dimensions (date range, venue, category, scale, free text) without adding syntax or format detail. It adds marginal value, e.g. glossing the grassroots/major scale split, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (search gigs and events) and enumerates the exact content types covered: band gigs, open mics, comedy nights, jam/folk sessions, festivals, club nights. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by scoping to a single city ('a supported city's upcoming...') while get_gig, list_cities and list_venues handle single-record lookup and reference data.

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 clear context for use and routes the agent to list_cities for supported coverage ('Only supported cities return data (see list_cities)'), plus lists the filter dimensions available. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or naming alternatives for retrieving a single event (get_gig), so it is not quite a 5.

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