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.