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 the data provenance (the restaurant's own website listing) and notes that links are included, which is genuinely useful context. It does not address freshness, empty results, or ordering, so it stops short of rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

One short clause with zero waste, and the resource type is front-loaded before the parenthetical examples. It is a fragment rather than a structured statement, but every word earns its place.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter read tool whose annotations carry the safety profile, so the description needs little. However, with no output schema, the description should say more about what comes back than just 'with links' — event fields such as title, date, or URL shape are unstated.

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%, and the single restaurant_id parameter is documented in the schema with its source (search_restaurants) and an example. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

The description states a specific verb+resource: upcoming events a restaurant lists on its website, and clarifies the content with concrete examples (tastings, live music, set evenings). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the resource is clearly distinct from menu, booking, and voucher tools.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as get_restaurant or check_table_availability. The usage is only inferable from the resource description, which leaves the agent to guess the triggering condition.

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