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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true/destructiveHint=false, but the description goes well beyond them: it states the never-mix-primary-and-resale constraint, explains that demand shows levels over a window rather than tickets bought that day, and notes the default render behavior (data-only via render:false). It also discloses deprecation/replacement behavior, which the annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the core behavior in the first sentence and organized around metric modes before routing to alternatives. It is dense and jargon-heavy but every clause carries routing or semantic information rather than 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 five-parameter chart tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: metric semantics, source rules, response shape (rows per date, image vs data-only) and sibling routing. The per-source series envelope is only described inside the schema, so the description alone is not fully self-contained, but it is sufficient to call the tool 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 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description largely restates what the schema already documents (price as default metric, vs as default source, the primary/resale distinction, the never-mix rule). It adds framing but little syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields.

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 resource and shape ('One event over time, one row per date') and then splits the two modes into distinct meanings: metric price = prices/inventory from one source, metric demand = interest and sales levels. It also explicitly names the tools it supersedes (get_event_price_chart, get_event_demand_chart), so an agent can disambiguate against siblings immediately.

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 explicit alternatives and the conditions that select them: use get_event_sections_live with view series for one section in finer steps, and get_event_analytics with range for other numbers over time. It also flags this tool as the replacement for two deprecated siblings, removing any ambiguity about which chart tool to call.

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