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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the required prerequisite state, the fact that publishing exposes tickets for sale, and the reversibility boundary (undo only while there are no orders). It does not say what happens to an already-published event or failure/permission behavior, so not 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect, followed by prerequisites, the undo route, and the API endpoint. No filler.

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 one-parameter state-changing tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers prerequisites, effect, reversal path, and endpoint. Missing only error/permission behavior and idempotency, which are minor gaps.

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?

Single parameter (event_id) fully documented in the schema at 100% coverage, so the schema carries the load. The description's prerequisite list describes event state, not the parameter itself, adding little semantic detail about event_id format or source.

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?

Specific verb+resource (make a draft event live) plus the consequential outcome (tickets go on sale) and the REST endpoint. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling mutation tools like eventbrite_create_event or eventbrite_update_event.

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?

States the preconditions for use (name, organizer, at least one ticket class, valid payment options) and names the inverse operation eventbrite_unpublish_event with its limiting condition (no orders). No explicit when-not-to-use, but the context is unambiguous.

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