Spectacular Atlas

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by enumerating the returned payload (dates, status, place and coordinates, official website, quoted date source, last-checked), which is genuinely useful given no output schema exists.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with purpose, and every clause (id source, returned fields) carries information. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 appropriately compensates by listing what comes back, and the annotations carry the safety profile. Minor gaps remain: no mention of error/not-found behavior or whether the response is a single object.

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% and the single 'id' parameter is fully documented there with an example value. The description's only added meaning is the provenance of the id ('from search_events'), which is more usage guidance than parameter semantics, 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 ('Full details of one spectacle by its id') and names the sibling that produces the id ('from search_events'), letting an agent separate it from search_events and list_filters 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?

The parenthetical '(from search_events)' clearly implies the prerequisite flow: search first, then fetch by id. There is no explicit when-not or statement of what happens for an unknown id, so it stops short of a full routing rule.

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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the fact that each entry carries a spectacle count, which is genuinely useful but modest additional disclosure.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the resource list, though the plural facet list is dense enough that slightly clearer phrasing (e.g., naming it as a guide-wide enumeration) would help.

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 no-parameter, read-only enumeration with no output schema, the description gives an adequate picture of the returned categories and the count field. It stops short of describing ordering or whether results are grouped, which would fully close the gap left by the missing output schema.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies — there is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs. It does not need to compensate for any schema 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 enumerates exactly what the tool returns — types, sizes, regions, countries and a count of spectacles per entry — which distinguishes it from the event-oriented siblings get_event and search_events. However, it never states a verb ('list'/'retrieve') and the name list_filters hints at a filter vocabulary the description only loosely matches via the types/regions/countries facets.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this rather than get_event or search_events, nor any mention of prerequisites or intended workflow (e.g., use it to discover valid filter values before searching). The reader must infer the purpose from the return contents alone.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: result ordering ('soonest first, or nearest first when near_lat/near_lng are given') and the default limit, 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?

Two sentences, zero waste: the purpose and facets lead, then the return contract and ordering rules follow. Every clause carries information the agent needs, and nothing is padded.

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 14 all-optional parameters and no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (dates, status, place, type, size, description, website, atlas page) and the ordering rule. It omits empty-result behavior and any pagination caveat, which is a minor gap for a search tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond the schema by clarifying the interaction between sort defaults and the near_lat/near_lng pair, and by naming limit as a control on result count, which is more than a restatement of field docs.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Find visual-art spectacles worldwide') plus the facet set (trip dates, place, type, size), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not differentiate from siblings get_event or list_filters, which caps it below 5.

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?

Usage is only implied through the facet list ('by trip dates, place, type and size'), which hints at trip-planning scenarios. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not, and no mention of get_event as the follow-up for a single result, so the agent must infer the routing.

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