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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and world-scope profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — no return shape, no result limits, no indication of how id vs query resolution behaves.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of the under-specification problem rather than a virtue achieved through careful editing.

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 8-parameter search tool with 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and only safety-oriented annotations, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot tell how the id/query alternation works, what the filters do, or how results are bounded.

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 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It loosely maps to the 'kind' enum by naming entity types, but says nothing about id vs query (the anyOf disjunction), city/genre/date filters, or the limit cap of 20.

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 names the entity kinds (DJ, venue, collective, promoter) and implies a lookup via the user-intent phrasing, but never states what the tool actually returns or does beyond the tool name. It also fails to distinguish itself from sibling tools get_artist and get_venue, which appear to cover overlapping entity lookups.

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?

It gives a when-to-use trigger ('when a user asks who a DJ is or about a venue...'), which is real guidance. However, there are no when-not conditions and no mention of alternatives, despite get_artist and get_venue existing as obvious overlapping siblings — the agent gets no help choosing between them.

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