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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it scopes the response to 'public' data and explicitly excludes guest lists and attendee data, which prevents wasted calls and wrong assumptions. What it doesn't say is what happens for private/unlisted events or missing ids.

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 field list is front-loaded and the negative scoping ('never returns guest lists') is placed last where it reads as a caveat, which is the right order.

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 single-lookup read tool with full annotation coverage and a fully documented single parameter, little more is needed. Since there is no output schema, listing the returned sections (description, timing, venue, hosts, categories, ticket types, FAQs) usefully substitutes for one. Minor gap: no mention of error/not-found 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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage with an example format ('evt-qlNoZjWKJzEq5ao'). The description adds nothing about event_id semantics or whether alternate id forms are accepted, 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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Get full public detail for one Luma event', with the returned fields enumerated. The singular 'one' implicitly separates it from the list-oriented siblings (luma_events, luma_calendar_events), but it never names them, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 phrase 'for one Luma event' implies the use case (you already have an event id and want details), and the required event_id is documented in the schema. However, there is no explicit guidance such as 'use luma_events to find an id first' or any statement of when not to use this tool.

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