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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral transparency. It mentions 'tolerates noisy titles' and describes output format, but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. Adequate but incomplete.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds meaning 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return values. It covers the tool's scope and key features. Minor gaps exist regarding ordering and pagination, but overall complete enough for an agent.

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 high (67%), so the description does not need to fully reiterate parameters. It adds value by explaining that query matching tolerates noisy titles and that results are canonical with cross-reseller data.

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 function: searching French cultural events across multiple ticket resellers. It specifies the types of events and uses a strong verb 'Search' with a defined resource, distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_show' or '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?

The description implies when to use (e.g., for cross-reseller aggregation) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. The context of sibling tools like 'compare_offers' and 'search' is present, but no direct guidance.

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