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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context on top: the mutual-exclusivity contract for event_id/organization_id, the underlying REST endpoints, and the shape of the returned fields. It does not mention rate limits or pagination behavior (beyond the schema's continuation param), keeping it below 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 tight sentences: the scope constraint and the returned fields are front-loaded, and the endpoint mapping is appended as supporting detail. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential: what it returns, the two scoping modes, and the mutual-exclusivity rule, while the schema fully documents pagination (continuation), status enum, and expand. A brief note on pagination looping or default status would make it complete at 5.

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 baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by surfacing the exactly-one-of constraint between event_id and organization_id, a relationship the schema does not express (no required fields, no oneOf), plus the endpoint form each maps to.

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 (List) plus resource (orders) and precisely scopes it to either one event or all of an organization's events, with the returned fields named (buyer name/email, status, costs). An agent can distinguish it from eventbrite_get_order (single order) and eventbrite_list_attendees 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 an explicit selection rule: 'Pass exactly one of event_id / organization_id.' This tells the agent how to choose between the two modes of operation, which is the main usage ambiguity for this tool. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling (e.g. get_order for a single order) or stating when not to use it, so it isn't a full 5.

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