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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that results include the day rule; it does not discuss pagination behavior or result ordering beyond what the limit parameter implies.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope, followed by usage examples and return-format note. Every sentence contributes; the examples are slightly verbose but earn their place by clarifying intent.

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 search with no output schema, the description notes that results carry the day rule and the schema fully documents all inputs, so an agent has enough to call it correctly. A brief note on result count or ordering would round it out.

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%, so each of the five parameters is already documented in detail. The description restates the searchable dimensions but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3 for schema-dominant definitions.

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 all regular nights out in Manchester') plus the searchable dimensions (keyword, area, type, day). The word 'regular' implicitly separates it from seasonal_events, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls short of the 5-level differentiation.

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?

Concrete example queries ('free comedy in Manchester', 'which pubs in Stockport have a quiz', 'open mics on Mondays') make the intended use cases vivid and easy to match. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives like whats_on or seasonal_events.

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