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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: Stripe must be connected for paid tiers, the event must be live, and host authorization is required. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by critical prerequisites. Every clause adds useful information without redundancy.

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?

Covers the core behavior, required parameters, key options, and prerequisites. It lacks explicit error conditions and doesn't describe max_per_person/description, but for an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, it is largely 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the parameter-meaning burden. It explains price (0 = free RSVP), capacity, approval, secret unlock code, and event_id, but does not address max_per_person or description. Partial compensation with clear gaps.

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?

Description clearly states the action: adding a ticket tier to a live event, with specific detail on free vs paid, capacity, approval, and secret code options. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_ticket_tier, delete_ticket_tier, and list_ticket_tiers.

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?

Provides clear context: paid tiers require Stripe, event_id is required, and the caller must be a host. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the prerequisites and conditions are strong enough to guide selection.

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