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

Annotations already carry the read-only safety profile, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: face value is in cents, both splits reconcile to the totals, and it requires a Cotlet API key with access to the app. No return format or pagination detail is given, but the auth and unit disclosures are valuable.

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?

Front-loads the core output description and is compact. The breakdown by type and channel is stated twice, which is mildly redundant but not egregious.

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 explains the aggregation dimensions (ticket type, sales channel with enumerated values), the currency unit, and the auth prerequisite. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though nothing on response shape or empty-result behavior.

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 both parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description only restates that 'since' counts newer orders, adding marginal meaning beyond the schema's 'Only orders placed after this time.'

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+resource: returns tickets sold and face value for one event, split by ticket type and sales channel. The phrase 'Adds up the orders of one event' distinguishes it from list-style siblings like dice_list_orders by making clear it is an aggregate, not a listing.

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?

Gives one conditional hint ('Set since to count only newer orders') but never states when to choose this over dice_list_orders or dice_list_ticket_holders, nor any exclusions. Usage is implied by the summary nature rather than made explicit.

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