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 a genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact the schema cannot express: 'The API has no paging for events,' which warns the agent that results arrive in one response. It also clarifies that dates are UTC, though it says nothing about auth or rate limits.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and the returned-field inventory, then filters, then a behavioral caveat and endpoint. Nothing is redundant and each sentence conveys distinct information.

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 15 optional parameters and no output schema, the description usefully compensates by enumerating the response fields and flagging the absence of paging. It is close to complete; minor gaps are the interaction between active_only/inactive_only defaults and the sort parameters, which are left entirely to the schema.

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% and each of the 15 params is documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly restates the filter categories rather than adding new meaning, with the one real addition being the UTC clarification for yyyy-mm-dd dates, which the schema pattern alone does not convey.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('List the events you own on Ticketsauce') and then enumerates the returned fields (id, name, slug, dates, venue, privacy, URLs), so the scope is unmistakable. It implicitly separates itself from ticketsauce_get_event by being the list operation and points to orders/check-ins as downstream consumers, but it never names the sibling tools outright.

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 states concretely which filter dimensions exist (start/end/created dates, named phrases, organization, partner) and gives a workflow hint: 'Use the event id for orders and check-ins.' That tells the agent when to call this before list_orders or list_checkin_ids. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative such as get_event for a single record.

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