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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description adds genuinely useful context: the results contain attendee personal data and ticket secrets are stripped. It stops short of discussing pagination limits or permission scopes, but the PII and secret-redaction notes are the important behavioral disclosures for this tool.

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?

The scope statement and field list are front-loaded, and the PII/secret notes immediately follow. The inline endpoint path is somewhat redundant with the tool name but does not bloat the text significantly.

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 13-parameter filtered-list tool with no output schema, the definition covers scope, return fields, data sensitivity, and redaction, which is enough to call it correctly. It omits explicit pagination guidance and alternative-tool routing, both of which the schema partially covers.

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 every one of the 13 parameters is already documented in the schema, making the baseline a 3. The description only adds the event-omission behavior, which the schema also states; it adds little else about parameter semantics.

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?

It gives a specific verb and resource ('List the individual tickets (order positions)'), states the scope (one event, or all events of the organizer when no event is given), and enumerates the returned fields. The distinction from pretix_list_orders is clear from the parenthetical 'order positions' and the per-attendee field list.

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?

It explains the key routing condition: omit the event to search across all events of the organizer, which directly controls a major parameter. It does not name pretix_list_orders or pretix_list_checkin_list_positions as alternatives or state when to prefer those, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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