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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description adds useful state-change context (draft becomes live, tickets go on sale) and reversibility constraints. It does not cover authentication, rate limits, or error behavior, but it meaningfully supplements the sparse annotation.

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 front-loaded sentences, each with a distinct job: purpose, prerequisites, and undo/endpoint. No filler, and the most important information (what it does) comes first.

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 one required parameter, full schema coverage, no output schema, and only a destructive hint annotation, the description supplies all the context an agent needs: purpose, prerequisites, undo path, and the underlying API endpoint. Nothing essential 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description never mentions event_id or adds syntax/format meaning beyond 'Event ID.' in the schema, so it neither helps nor hurts parameter understanding.

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 ('Make a draft event live') and resource ('event'), and distinguishes from the undo sibling by naming eventbrite_unpublish_event. An agent can immediately tell this is the publishing action distinct from create/update/unpublish.

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 explicit prerequisites (name, organizer, ticket class, payment options) that define when the tool can be used, and names the undo alternative with its own condition ('while there are no orders'). This is clear routing guidance beyond the schema.

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