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.