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 value beyond that by disclosing the permission gate (403 failure mode), pagination, and that each row carries the public on-sale status of every ticket type.

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?

Four short clauses, front-loaded with what is returned before the permission caveat, pagination, and endpoint. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return shape (one row per date, on-sale status per ticket type) and pagination. It is adequate for a long multi-param list tool, though it could say more about the returned fields.

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% across all 7 parameters, including enums and the category-dependent subcategory, so the schema carries the load. The description only alludes to paging and adds no per-parameter meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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) and resource (individual event dates from across the platform) plus the row granularity ('one row per date'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling humanitix_list_global_events that returns events rather than dates.

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?

Discloses a real prerequisite (a special Humanitix-activated permission, 403 otherwise), which is genuine usage context, but gives no explicit guidance on when to pick this over humanitix_list_global_events or humanitix_list_events. The alternative is left to inference.

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