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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the special account permission required (403 otherwise), the 'one row per date' cardinality, inclusion of on-sale status per ticket type, and that results are paged. No contradiction with the read-only 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 dense sentences with the resource and granularity front-loaded, followed by the permission constraint, pagination, and endpoint. Every clause carries information; the description is appropriately sized for a 7-parameter listing tool.

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?

Covers the essentials an agent needs: scope, row granularity, permission requirement, and pagination. With no output schema, the description could say more about what fields each row returns, but for a read-only list tool it is close to complete.

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% with all 7 parameters documented, including enums and the subcategory->category dependency. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail, so the schema carries the full load and 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 (list event dates) and clarifies the granularity that separates it from the sibling list_global_events: 'one row per date' and platform-wide scope. It never names the sibling explicitly, which keeps it short of a 5, but the resource and scope are 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 implied by the scope ('from across the platform') and the permission prerequisite, which tells the agent when the call will fail (403). It does not say when to prefer this over humanitix_list_global_events or humanitix_list_events, so the agent must infer the alternative.

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