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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations, it discloses three things an agent would otherwise learn the hard way: the result set contains customers' PII, replies are cached for an hour (stale-data risk), and paging works by feeding next_page back with per_page capped at 500. Optional embeds (tickets, questionnaires, line-item fees) are also flagged as opt-in cost knobs.

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?

It is a dense single paragraph, front-loaded with the resource and default sort, then filters, then paging and caching. The returned-field inventory is long but earns its place since there is no output schema; the only mild redundancy is restating the per_page 500 cap and next_page that the schema already defines.

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, the description supplies the return shape (ids, status, buyer contact data, totals, promo, ticket_count, paid date), pagination mechanics, caching behavior and a PII warning. An agent can call it correctly and knows what to expect back without opening 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%, so the schema already documents every parameter including enums and ranges. The description adds some practical semantics (exact-match on email/last name, sort_dir desc for newest, next_page vs per_page) but mostly restates what the schema carries, so the baseline 3 applies; it could have clarified whether date filters combine conjunctively with q or the phrase filter.

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 opening phrase 'Orders of one event' gives a specific verb (list) and resource (orders scoped to a single event), and the field inventory plus the endpoint GET /v2/orders/{event_id} pin down exactly what is returned. It is clearly distinguishable from ticketsauce_get_order (one order) and ticketsauce_list_events (events, not orders).

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 the default ordering and the override ('pass sort_dir desc for newest first'), and enumerates the available filter axes, which tells the agent what queries are supported. What is missing is an explicit routing statement (e.g., use ticketsauce_get_order when you already have an order id), so usage is clear but not fully exclusive.

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