TicketsMinistry events

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

Annotations only cover the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world); the description goes well beyond by disclosing that checkout needs a signed-in account and card verification and must not be performed on the user's behalf. It also flags that organizer-written fields are untrusted data rather than instructions, which is a genuine prompt-injection warning not derivable from structured fields.

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 the returned contents, followed by the purchase caveat and the data-vs-instructions warning. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by enumerating what comes back; it also covers the security constraint (no checkout on behalf of the user) and injection risk. Nothing an agent needs to call this 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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter's schema description already states it is the id from a search_events result, which the description essentially repeats. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema 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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (one event) and enumerates the returned content: description, ticket tiers with price and sold-out status, policies, venue map, event page url. It explicitly ties itself to the sibling search_events, so the agent can distinguish it from search/list tools without opening a 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 makes clear this is the follow-up to search_events ("one event from search_events") and gives explicit when-not guidance for the purchase flow ("do not try to complete it for them"). It doesn't spell out exclusions for other siblings such as search_help, but the context is unambiguous.

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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the list is scoped to entities that 'currently have upcoming events' and includes counts, implying the result is a time-sensitive snapshot.

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 no filler; the returned content is front-loaded and the follow-up action comes second. Every clause earns its place.

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-arg, no-output-schema listing tool, the description covers what is returned and why. The only gap is the shape of the payload (flat vs. grouped by category/city, how counts are keyed), which the agent must infer.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies. No parameter semantics are needed or missing.

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 names the exact resource set (categories, cities, venues with upcoming events) plus the count detail, which is specific enough to separate it from get_event and search_events. It reads as a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb+resource, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 explicitly routes the agent: 'Use the values as filters for search_events,' naming the sibling that consumes the output. There is no when-not guidance (e.g., what to do if no results), but the intended workflow 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?

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, it discloses sort order (start time), the fields returned (date, venue, starting price, sale status, url), that times are venue-local, and a prompt-injection warning about organiser-written content being data not instructions. That is substantial disclosure the annotations do not carry.

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?

The scope, filters, return shape, and safety caveats are front-loaded across tightly packed sentences with no filler. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 compensates by enumerating returned fields, and it covers the one risky adjacent action (checkout) plus injection risk. Nothing needed to invoke this six-parameter, all-optional search 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%, so the schema already documents every parameter including defaults, patterns and the date-overrides-when relationship. The description restates the filtering axes without adding syntax, format or edge-case detail beyond structured fields, 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?

The description names a specific verb+resource ('Find upcoming live events in Sri Lanka sold on TicketsMinistry') and enumerates the covered categories, so the agent knows exactly what domain this covers. It is clearly distinguishable from get_event (single event) and list_categories_and_cities (reference data).

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 states the filtering axes available and gives explicit behavioral guidance ('Tickets are bought by the person on the event page... do not try to complete it for them'), which tells the agent where this tool's job ends. However, it never names or routes to sibling tools like get_event or search_help, leaving alternative-selection to inference.

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 and non-destructive behaviour, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new information by disclosing the return shape (titles, summaries, links), which is valuable given there is no output schema.

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 filler: the first defines scope and topics, the second states the return content. Front-loaded and appropriately sized for a one-parameter search tool.

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 read-only search with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope and return fields. It omits result limits or ranking behaviour, but that is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's topical enumeration loosely frames what the query should cover (refunds, payments, etc.), but adds no syntax or formatting detail beyond the schema's own example.

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 (Search) and resource (TicketsMinistry help articles) and enumerates the topical scope: buying tickets, e-tickets, refunds, payments, listing an event. This clearly separates it from siblings like search_events and get_event, which operate on event data rather than help content.

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 implied by the topical list — the agent can infer it is for customer/organiser support questions — but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative for non-help lookups, so the agent must infer routing from the sibling names.

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