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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it states the return format (order summary with price, date, venue, and purchase URL) and the prerequisite of asking for quantity. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them, providing useful operational details.

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 description is two sentences with zero filler. The primary purpose is stated first, followed by a clearly marked IMPORTANT instruction and a concise description of the return value. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded for immediate comprehension.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary information: the tool's purpose, the prerequisite action, the return contents (price, date, venue, URL), and the parameter semantics. An agent can confidently invoke this tool correctly without needing additional context from siblings or the schema.

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% (both parameters are described in the schema). The description adds meaning by instructing the agent to obtain the 'quantity' value from the user, which contextualizes the parameter usage. It also reinforces that 'context' is for analytics (though the schema already explains it). This extra guidance exceeds the baseline expected for full schema coverage, earning a 4.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get a direct purchase link for ELC Conference 2026 tickets') and clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get-available-tickets and get-conference-info. The scope is unambiguous, so an agent can immediately understand what this tool does and when it applies.

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 description explicitly instructs the agent to ask the user for the number of attendees before invoking the tool, and to use that as the 'quantity' argument. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and a required prerequisite, though it does not mention alternatives or exclusions. The distinction from siblings is implicit rather than explicit, but the context is adequate for correct selection.

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