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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by revealing data sources (Ticketmaster + SeatGeek) and filter dimensions, going beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two sentences: first defines the action and scope, second lists filters and usage case. Every phrase earns its place, no redundancy.

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 5-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, filters, and when to use. It could mention output behavior (e.g., returns event listings) but likely sufficient for an agent.

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 0% schema coverage, the description effectively compensates by explaining each parameter: city, date range, category (with examples), and keyword (with examples). However, it does not clarify date format or whether category values are case-sensitive/enum-specific.

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 clearly states the tool searches for live events like concerts, sports, theater, etc., and specifies data sources (Ticketmaster + SeatGeek). It distinguishes from sibling tools focused on other activities (dining, flights, etc.).

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?

The description explicitly says 'Use this when the user wants tickets to a concert... or any live event during their trip,' providing clear context. It does not include exclusions or alternatives, but sibling tools cover different domains, so confusion is unlikely.

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