Ticketglide Ticketing Agent

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, openWorld=false. The description adds useful boundary context: it clarifies that no search is executed and no availability is checked, which is exactly what an agent needs to avoid mistaking this for a live query tool.

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 short sentences, with the core action front-loaded in the first clause. Each sentence contributes (action, destination, categories, negative behavior), though the middle sentences are slightly telegraphic.

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 tool with no output schema, the description leaves three parameters (query, locale, currency) undocumented anywhere, and never states explicitly that a URL string is returned. The core purpose and side-effect boundary are covered, so it is minimally viable but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning. It does add real value for two parameters – destination accepted values ('supported destination ID/name or worldwide') and category enumerations ('all, attractions, tours and day-trips') – but says nothing about query, locale, or currency.

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 ('Build a TicketGlide website search URL') and the contrast with search_guides is implied by 'This does not execute a search.' An agent can tell it produces a link rather than results, though siblings aren't named explicitly.

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?

Use case is implied – generate a shareable search URL rather than run a search – but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative among read_guide/search_guides. The negative statement ('does not execute a search or check availability') is the only routing help.

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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: it discloses that the return includes source links and factual check dates when present, and that drafts/supplier reviews are excluded from results.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope before the boilerplate documentation link. Nothing is padded, though the trailing URL sentence adds no invocation value.

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 single-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers the input source, the content returned, and the exclusions. Missing only error behavior for invalid or unpublished paths.

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 single path parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does identify the path as a published guide path obtained from search_guides, which gives the value provenance, but it does not state format, syntax, or what happens on an unknown path. Adequate but incomplete.

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 (read) and resource (a published guide) and grounds it in the sibling workflow by saying the path comes from search_guides. It also scopes out drafts and supplier reviews, which separates it from a general search. It stops short of explicitly naming search_guides as the discovery step an agent must call first.

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?

"a published guide path from search_guides" establishes the prerequisite and the ordering (search first, then read), and "No drafts or supplier reviews" tells the agent what this tool will refuse to return. There is no explicit when-not-to-use statement or named alternative, but the context is clear.

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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that results are editorial metadata rather than supplier inventory, but says nothing about pagination behavior (limit/offset) or result shape, which would be the added value given the annotations.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the disambiguating scope constraint immediately following. No filler, nothing redundant.

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 simple, zero-required-param read search tool the definition is mostly adequate, and there is no output schema so return values need not be explained. Still, it omits pagination semantics and any routing guidance against read_guide/create_search_link, leaving gaps for a tool that shares a namespace with two siblings.

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 0% across four parameters (limit, query, locale, offset), and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all — no hint that query matches editorial metadata, that locale constrains language, or how limit/offset paginate. With a zero-coverage schema the description was expected to compensate and does not.

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 (Find) and resource (published city/attraction/day-trip guides) with clear scope, and the 'editorial metadata, not supplier inventory' clause separates it from inventory-style searches. However, it never names or differentiates from its actual siblings read_guide and create_search_link, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.

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 scope line ('searches editorial metadata, not supplier inventory') implies when this tool is appropriate versus inventory lookups, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternatives read_guide (fetch one guide) or create_search_link. Usage is only implied.

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