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

Annotations already declare a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the results cover a trailing 7-day window and can be scoped to a single market/event. It does not discuss cost, rate limits, or result size, which would push it higher.

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, no filler, with the scope statement front-loaded before the alternative-tool routing. 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?

With no output schema, the description conveys what comes back (per-section prices and tickets) and the temporal coverage (now plus 7 days). It does not describe result shape or the effect of the 650-section limit, but for a read-only listing tool it is nearly complete.

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 limit, event_id, sections, and include_history are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, defaults, or filtering semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 with scope: each section's prices and tickets, for one event, now plus the last 7 days. It also names the sibling it is not (get_event_sections_live), so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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 routes the agent elsewhere for live/point-in-time/series needs: 'Use get_event_sections_live for seats open now, at a past moment (view at) or one section over hours (view series).' The alternatives are described by intent rather than exact tool names for the 'view at' and 'view series' cases, which slightly weakens the routing.

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