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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the record is 'live-refreshed from the catalog when called (cached copy otherwise),' which tells the agent about freshness and caching. It does not discuss auth, rate limits, or return shape, but the added freshness detail is meaningful.

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, front-loaded with purpose, then behavioral freshness detail, then routing guidance. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information comes first.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description enumerates the returned fields (venue, date, ticket count, price range, sections), covers freshness behavior, and routes to the correct alternative. Combined with rich annotations, nothing needed to call this read-only tool correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, with event_id fully documented as 'Event ID from search_events.' The description does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when structured data carries the parameter semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Full details for one event,' then enumerates exactly what is returned (venue, date, ticket count, price range, sections). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_availability, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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 an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it: 'Prefer get_availability when the only question is can I get N tickets at or under $X.' This is a clear when-not-to-use rule plus a named sibling, leaving no ambiguity about selection.

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