gigora

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses output details (50 shows, headlining status, venue, ticket link, Gigora URL) and input format. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or read-only nature, but the behavioral traits are sufficiently clear for a simple GET-like tool.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers input, output structure, and constraints (headlining only, max 50). It lacks error handling details but is largely complete for typical use.

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 50% of parameters have schema descriptions (artist is documented). The description adds context for `limit` by stating 'up to 50 upcoming shows', which clarifies its purpose. It also reiterates the artist input, providing additional clarity.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves an artist's upcoming tour dates from Gigora. It specifies the input (artist name or slug) and output (up to 50 headlining shows with venue, ticket link, and Gigora URL), which differentiates it from siblings like `concerts_in_city` (by city) and `search_concerts` (generic).

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 implies usage for obtaining an artist's tour dates but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., `concerts_in_city`). It lacks guidance on exclusions or contexts where the tool should not be used.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns up to 50 events and lists the returned fields (venue, headliner, ticket link, gigora.live URL). It does not cover authentication or rate limits, but the read-only nature is implied by 'list'.

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 a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the core functionality. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 listing tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers the parameters and output format. However, it lacks guidance on when to use siblings, and the default days value is mentioned but not that city is required. Still, it meets the needs for typical use.

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 low (33% of parameters have descriptions). The description adds meaning by explaining the default (30) and maximum (365) for days, the maximum limit of 50, and implicitly that city is the target location. This compensates for the missing parameter descriptions.

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 clearly states the action (list), the resource (upcoming concerts), and the scope (in a given city over N days). It distinguishes itself from siblings like artist_tour_dates, festival_lookup, and search_concerts by focusing on city and time window.

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 provides defaults and limits for days and limit parameters, giving clear context for usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that results are limited to 50 and only festivals with upcoming editions, but omits other behavioral traits such as authentication, rate limits, or error handling (e.g., what happens if no festivals match).

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 efficiently cover purpose, criteria, and return value. No redundant text, but could be slightly more structured by separating input from output details.

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?

Given 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about return format, error responses, and parameter constraints. It mentions return fields but not their types, and omits guidance for edge cases like empty results.

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 only 33% (only 'name' has a description). The description adds context by stating 'by name and/or country' and that limit caps results at 50. However, it does not clarify the format for 'country' (e.g., exact name, code) or that 'limit' is the maximum for the entire result set.

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 clearly states the tool finds music festivals by name and/or country and returns specific fields (next edition date, location, URL). It distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing on festivals rather than tours or concerts, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'artist_tour_dates' or 'concerts_in_city'. The description implies usage for festival lookup but provides no context or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that results are limited to 50 events and includes specific output fields. However, it omits behavioral details like pagination, ordering, rate limits, or authentication requirements. This is adequate but not thorough for an unannotated tool.

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: the first is action-oriented ('Search upcoming concerts by...'), the second summarizes the result structure. No redundant or filler content. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given 7 parameters, 57% schema coverage, and no output schema or annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers core purpose and output, but lacks details on default ordering, date format expectations, and how filters combine (AND vs OR). More context would improve completeness.

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 57% (4 of 7 parameters have descriptions). The description adds context by stating that any combination of city, country, artist, genre, and date range can be used. However, it does not detail each parameter's format or constraints beyond what the schema provides, leaving ambiguity for parameters like 'city' and 'genre'.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: searching upcoming concerts on Gigora with multiple criteria. It lists specific searchable fields (city, country, artist, genre, date range) and output fields (venue, headliner, ticket link, gigora.live URL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'artist_tour_dates' and 'festival_lookup' which are more specialized.

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 implies usage by stating what the tool searches, but does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings. For example, it does not mention that 'concerts_in_city' might be more appropriate if only a city filter is needed. The lack of usage boundaries makes it less helpful for tool selection.

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