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

Annotations already declare this a safe, non-destructive, closed-world read, so the description's job is to add context beyond that — and it does, disclosing that soft-deleted and cancelled concerts remain retrievable and that `status` disambiguates them. It also flags `page_url` as the field to surface to users, which is genuine behavioral guidance rather than schema repetition.

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 short sentences with zero padding, and the retrieval scope is front-loaded before the practical tip about `page_url`. 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?

This is a low-complexity single-record lookup with no output schema, so the description's mention of `status` and `page_url` covers the return values an agent most needs. Missing only failure behavior for invalid ids to be fully self-sufficient.

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?

With one parameter at 0% schema coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining it and does clarify that the id names a concert (matching the uuid format in the schema). It does not say what happens with a malformed or unknown id, which is the remaining 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?

"One concert by its id" states a specific verb-and-resource pair and implies single-record retrieval, which separates it from search_concerts without naming it. The addition that past, cancelled and removed concerts are included further sharpens what this tool returns versus a search.

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 rather than stated: the agent can infer it should call this when it already holds a concert id and needs the record even if it is cancelled or removed. There is no explicit routing guidance such as "use search_concerts to find an id first" or a note on what to do when the id is unknown.

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