Place to Be

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that results are drawn from placetobe.cc pages, but says nothing about failure behavior for an invalid/expired id, rate limits, or access requirements. Useful but not rich beyond what the annotations supply.

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: the first front-loads what the tool returns, the second handles input provenance. No filler, no repetition of the title, and the most decision-relevant content leads.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not document return values, and annotations cover the read-only profile; input sourcing is covered. What is missing is only edge-case behavior (invalid id, unknown URL), which is a minor gap for a single-parameter lookup.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the schema itself already documents the accepted id and URL formats. The description goes marginally further by naming the upstream producer (search_events) and the domain, which helps the agent construct a valid call when chaining tools.

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+resource ('Get one event in full') and enumerates exactly what comes back: description, venue/address, coordinates, times, score with reason, and source page. This distinguishes it cleanly from the sibling search_events, which returns many events rather than one detailed record.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent where the input comes from — an id produced by search_events, or a placetobe.cc URL — which is the key chaining instruction. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use note (e.g., 'do not use for browsing'), but the context is unambiguous for a detail-lookup tool.

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 and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds the useful behavioral detail of result ordering (largest event count first) and that only cities with a live board are returned. It does not mention the default/max result count behavior, but that is minor against the annotation coverage.

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, zero filler, with the what/ordering stated first and the routing/usage guidance second. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure need not be explained. Given a read-only, annotation-covered list tool with three simple params, the description supplies everything an agent needs to select and call it correctly.

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 67%, and the description reinforces the two documented filters (partial name match, country) but adds no new syntax or format detail beyond the schema. The 'limit' parameter is undocumented in both the description and the schema, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('List the cities that currently have a live events board') plus scope and ordering ('biggest first'), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It also differentiates itself from the sibling search_events by framing itself as a coverage/name-resolution lookup rather than an event search.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use it to check coverage or to find the exact city name before calling search_events'), naming the sibling it feeds into. The filtering options (part of a name, country) are also tied to concrete intent.

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?

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses data provenance and freshness (merged from ticketing, sports and open-data feeds, refreshed every two hours) and what each result contains. It does not state result limits or failure modes, but the freshness/provenance detail is genuinely additive.

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?

It is long but front-loaded: scope and ranking come first, then coverage, then sample queries, then result shape. Every sentence carries information, though the sample-question list is somewhat padded relative to the rest.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return fields, yet it still summarizes result shape. Given 7 optional parameters and 100% schema coverage, the definition is complete enough for correct invocation; only explicit sibling routing is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: the score is defined as 0-100 from expected crowd and timing, and the ranking semantics of the two sort options are explained in prose. This enriches interpretation beyond the enum definitions.

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 names a specific verb (find) and resource (events) with scope clearly stated: city, country or worldwide, ranked by score or start time. It is easily distinguished from the siblings get_event (single lookup) and list_cities (enumeration).

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 concrete triggering questions ("what's on in Lisbon this weekend", "when are Arsenal at home"), which clarifies the intended query shapes. It does not explicitly say when to prefer get_event or list_cities instead, so routing to siblings is left to inference.

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