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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: replies are cached for an hour (an agent must know data may be stale) and counters are defined as tickets sold excluding refunded/voided. The endpoint path is also disclosed. Missing only error/not-found behavior, which is minor.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource identity, then the payload delta, then the caching caveat. Nothing is redundant with the title and nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description does useful work by enumerating the extra fields returned relative to a list item. Combined with the caching note and fully documented params, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the shape of nested photo/performer expansions is left implicit.

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 all three parameters (event, photos, include_performers) are already documented. The description restates the id/slug duality but adds nothing about the optional photo/performer expansion flags, so 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 resource and retrieval mode ("One event by id or slug") and immediately clarifies the difference from the list siblings: "everything in the list plus summary and description... order_count and ticket_count." An agent can distinguish it from ticketsauce_list_events and ticketsauce_get_order without opening any schema.

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?

The phrase "everything in the list plus..." gives clear context for when to pick single-event detail over listing, and the schema reference to ids "as returned by ticketsauce_list_events" reinforces the list-then-get flow. It does not explicitly state exclusions (e.g., that it is unnecessary if you already have the event from a list call), so it stops short of a 5.

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