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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and closed-world aspects are covered without the description. The description adds no behavioral detail such as whether a query is a partial match, whether an ID is preferred, or what data quality to expect, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It immediately gives the actionable context, even though it is thin on other details.

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?

Given 8 parameters, an anyOf grouping, a required kind, and no output schema, the description provides too little context for an agent to construct calls confidently. Important usage details like id-based lookup vs query search filters, date constraints, and limit behavior are missing or left entirely to the schema.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate for the undocumented parameters, but it only hints at the kind enum by naming DJ, venue, collective, and promoter. It says nothing about id, query, city, genre, limit, date_from, or date_to, and it omits artist as a valid kind.

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 gives a concrete trigger: use it when the user asks who a DJ is or about a venue/collective/promoter, which makes it distinguishable from event-focused siblings like search_events or get_artist_events. It stops short of stating the unified action of finding scene entities and omits the 'artist' kind even though the schema includes it.

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?

'Use this when a user asks...' is an explicit usage condition tied to user intent. However, it does not contrast this tool with any alternative or say when not to use it, so the guidance is contextful but not a full routing decision.

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