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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. Beyond that the description adds real value: real-time reflection of returns and transfers, the 100-row page limit, the cursor round-trip, and the API-key/access prerequisite. It does not address rate limits or ordering, keeping it below a 5.

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-loaded with the identity and return fields, and every sentence carries operational or parameter guidance. There is mild redundancy between the first sentence ('Who holds a ticket now') and the second ('Lists who holds a ticket... for one event right now'), which keeps it from a 5.

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 naming the returned fields (name, ticket type, claimed) and covering pagination, auth, and format. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly for a 4-parameter read 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds intent beyond the schema for two params: it tells the agent to pass next_cursor back as cursor and explains why to choose format=csv (openable door-team file). The ticket_type filter is also given a purpose (per-type door list), pushing this above baseline.

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 ('Lists who holds a ticket for one event right now') and names the returned fields, distinguishing it clearly from sibling tools like dice_list_orders and dice_list_transfers. The 'right now' framing plus the note that returned/transferred tickets are reflected makes the scope 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?

Gives concrete usage contexts: filter by ticket type for a per-type door list, and set format to csv for a door-team file. It implies the when (checking current holders, producing a door list) but never names an alternative or states when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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