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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them by disclosing the shape of the response (times, address 'if known', sources, last-checked freshness) despite there being no output schema, which is genuinely useful.

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 verb and resource in a single dense sentence; every clause describes a returned field rather than padding. Slightly list-heavy in its tail but nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so competently. It is silent only on edge cases such as an unknown venue name or result limits, which are minor for a single-parameter lookup.

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 'venue' parameter is already fully documented as a string with examples. The description nevertheless adds a constraint the schema lacks: the venue must be a single Manchester venue, narrowing the accepted input scope.

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 (Get) and resource (events at one Manchester venue) and enumerates the returned fields (times, address, sources, last-checked). It does not differentiate itself from siblings like seasonal_events or whats_on, whose domains it overlaps by claiming to cover 'seasonal or one-off event' too.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the per-venue detail lookup, but the description never says when to pick it over whats_on or search_listings, nor names any alternative or exclusion. Adequate minimum, but no routing guidance.

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