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

Annotations supply only destructiveHint=true, so the description carries most of the burden, and it does add real value by enumerating the copied configuration. However, it omits important behavioral facts: whether the new event starts as a draft or published, whether permissions/scopes are required, and why a copy is flagged destructive. The page's POST /events/{event_id}/copy/ reference is a useful pointer but not behavioral detail.

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 action and scope, with the endpoint appended for orientation. Dense but each clause earns its place; the only mild redundancy is the parenthetical list echoing what the title already implies.

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?

With no output schema, the description should tell the agent what comes back, and it only says 'a new ID' without specifying the response shape or how to fetch/publish the resulting event. For a mutation tool with a single annotation this leaves a meaningful gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters including formats and the UTC pattern. The description only gestures at name and dates ('optionally with a new name and dates') and says nothing about summary or timezone, so it adds little beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Duplicate an event') and enumerates exactly what is carried over (tickets, payment options, refund policy, tax settings), so an agent can separate it from eventbrite_create_event without opening the schema. The 'into a new event with a new ID' clause makes the outcome unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer 'use this instead of create_event when you want an existing event's configuration reused', but the description never says so explicitly, nor does it name create_event as the alternative. The optional name/dates note is context, not routing guidance.

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