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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true and a title, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden — it does this well by disclosing the DRAFT state, invisibility until publish, and the ticket prerequisite. It omits any mention of return value (the created event's ID) or whether the operation is idempotent, keeping it short of a 5.

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 front-loaded sentences plus the endpoint reference, with zero filler. State, prerequisite, and API path are delivered in order of importance.

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 20-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical state semantics and workflow sequencing. It could note what the call returns (the new event ID needed for subsequent calls), but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and every one of the 20 parameters is documented in the schema itself, including mutual exclusions (invite_only vs listed, online_event vs venue_id). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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+resource ('Create a new event') and scopes it precisely as a DRAFT, explicitly contrasting with the publish step. An agent can distinguish this from eventbrite_publish_event and eventbrite_update_event without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear workflow context: the event is not visible/on sale until eventbrite_publish_event, and tickets must be added via eventbrite_create_ticket_class before publishing. It names the related tools but does not explicitly compare against eventbrite_copy_event or state when a draft is preferable over other creation paths.

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