TIX – shows and ticket deals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: it discloses what is deliberately excluded (members-only prices) and what each ticket option encodes (Lasttix discount, presale), which prevents misreading the result as a complete price map. It does not mention error behavior for an unresolvable show.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the one-show scope, then the returned fields, then the exclusion and purchase note. No filler, no repetition of the title, and every clause carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return contract, and it does reasonably well by enumerating description, ticket options, venue, city, dates, price basis (AUD 'from'), and deal flags. It stops short of noting anything about missing/past shows or whether prices include fees, which a single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema could still usefully say.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents that 'show' accepts a TIX page URL, slug, or show name. The description adds no format, precedence, or resolution detail beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Details for one show on TIX') and enumerates the actual payload: description, each ticket option with venue, city, dates, AUD from-price, and Lasttix/presale flags. That is far more precise than a tautology. It does not name or contrast with search_shows/show_cards directly, so full sibling differentiation is left implicit (the schema hint 'from search_shows' does part of that work).

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool returns one show, and the schema notes the input comes from search_shows, so a competent agent can infer the search-then-detail flow. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not clause and no mention of show_cards or show_alert_link as alternatives for adjacent needs. The 'Tickets are bought from the show page URL' line is a purchase note, not routing guidance.

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

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

Annotations already establish a safe read-only, non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: the returned fields (titles, cities, dates, AUD from prices, discounts, page URL) and the default ordering (soonest first) are disclosed. It doesn't mention rate limits, auth, or pagination behavior via limit/offset, which keeps it from a 5.

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, each carrying distinct information: what is searched, what is returned, and how filters/defaults behave. The most important routing information is front-loaded in the first sentence, with no filler.

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 nine-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return fields and the default result set, covering what an agent needs to invoke it and interpret results. Remaining gaps are the semantics of individual filters and pagination interaction between limit and offset.

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 56%, so about half the parameters (city, category, limit, offset) have no inline prose. The description compensates partially by stating that filters combine and that omitting all filters yields an unfiltered 'on now' list, but it adds no meaning for individual filters such as from/to interaction with when, or the limit ceiling. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Search) plus resource (live events on sale on TIX) and scopes the catalog precisely: theatre, musicals, concerts, comedy, Australia and New Zealand. It is instantly distinguishable from the sibling get_show, which by name retrieves a single show rather than querying the catalog.

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 clear usage rule: filters combine, and with no filters the tool returns what is on now and coming up, soonest first. That tells the agent it can call with zero parameters and what the default result is. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_show or show_cards, so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare a safe read-only, non-open-world operation, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: the link opens the TIX show page where the user enters their own email and confirms, it is free, and unsubscribe is available at any time. No rate limits or error behavior disclosed, but that is minor for this tool.

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, front-loaded with the action and what the recipient does, ending with the usage condition. The parenthetical about deals/presales/state offers is informative but slightly dense; no wasted filler.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what the link is, what the recipient experiences, cost/opt-out, and when to use it. Nothing essential is missing, though return-format details are not needed here.

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 'show' parameter is already documented as accepting a URL, slug, or show name (from search_shows). The description restates that the link is tied to a show but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a link the person can open to sign up for TIX email alerts about a show') plus the scope of what alerts cover (deals, presales, state offers). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_show and search_shows, which retrieve show data rather than an alert sign-up link.

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?

Gives a clear trigger: 'Use it when someone wants to hear about a deal or presale for a show.' It does not name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to prefer get_show instead), so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-annotation context: the rendered card composition (image, dates, price, button) and the required search_shows chaining. The 'up to 8' limit merely restates the schema's maxItems, so it earns no extra credit.

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, both load-bearing, with the purpose front-loaded and the prerequisite instruction second. No filler or restated metadata.

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 single-parameter, read-only display tool with no output schema, the definition covers what is rendered and how to source input, which is enough for correct invocation. The main gap is not naming the accepted non-URL input formats, which the description could have surfaced given the low schema coverage.

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 reported at 0% for the property (only the array items carry a description), so the description bears more weight. It tells the agent to pass show URLs, but ignores the schema's accepted alternatives (slug or show name), leaving the parameter only partially explained outside the schema.

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 and resource ('Display up to 8 shows as cards') and even enumerates the card contents (image, dates, price, link button), so an agent understands this is a UI rendering tool, not a data query. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with get_show or show_alert_link, but the 'cards' framing differentiates it adequately.

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 clear prerequisite and ordering instruction: 'Call search_shows first and pass the URLs of the shows you want to show.' That routes the agent to the correct sibling for input gathering. No explicit when-not or alternative-rejection guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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