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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, yet the description adds substantive context: the response contains customer personal data, and order secrets, order links and payment details are stripped. That redaction disclosure is exactly the kind of beyond-annotation signal an agent needs, though return-shape particulars (counts, next_page) are left to the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with scope then return contents, followed by the security caveat and the endpoint path. Every sentence carries information except the raw GET URL, which is largely redundant with the tool's own naming and adds length without adding decision value.

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 17-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool this is nearly complete: scope, returned field inventory, and a PII/redaction warning are all present. Only the pagination contract and result-cap behavior are unaddressed in prose, and those are covered by the page/page_size schema descriptions.

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 17 parameters, including the event/organizer conditional and pagination defaults, so the structured data does the heavy lifting. The description only reinforces the event-omission behavior and the field set, adding little semantic detail the schema lacks.

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 and resource plus the dual scope ('one event, or of all events of the organizer when no event is given'), and enumerates the fields returned. This clearly separates it from the single-order sibling pretix_get_order and from pretix_list_order_positions.

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?

Explains the two operating modes: supply an event to scope to one event, omit it to sweep all events of the organizer. It does not explicitly contrast with pretix_get_order for single-order lookups or with the position-level listing tool, so there is no named alternative or when-not clause, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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