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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, and the description adds useful behavioral context by listing what the response contains, including the notable inclusion of other dates from the same run. No contradiction exists between the description and the annotation.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then provides a compact, useful list of included details. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 read-only single-resource lookup with an existing output schema and fully documented parameters, this description provides sufficient context. The agent can infer the correct resource scope, the required event_id provenance, and the nature of the returned data without additional explanation.

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%, including event_id's source from list_events and the locale enum with default value. The description itself adds little parameter-specific detail, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Full details of one concert') and enumerates concrete content: bio, line-up, other dates, prices, and availability. This clearly distinguishes it from list_events (many concerts) and from facet-specific tools like get_availability or get_venue_info.

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 implies when to use it by focusing on a single concert's full details, and the schema's event_id description ties it to list_events. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer get_availability or get_venue_info for narrower lookups, so usage context is clear but exclusions and alternatives are not stated.

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