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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: only fields present in the data are returned and missing information must never be filled in, plus the temporal limitation that this reflects what is on sale, not when. It stops short of describing pagination or error behavior, which keeps it off a 5.

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-loads the return contents, then usage triggers, then the caveats about missing fields and absent schedule data — a sensible ordering with no filler. The opening field enumeration is long but every item maps to real returned content, so little could be cut without losing routing 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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needs no explanation, yet the description helpfully flags the sparsity caveat and the sale-vs-schedule distinction that the schema cannot express. With one required parameter fully documented and annotations covering safety, the only minor gap is how to obtain a valid eventId when it is unknown.

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 coverage is 100% and the single eventId parameter is already documented as coming from search_events, so the schema does the work. The description adds no format, validation or example detail about eventId, which is acceptable at baseline but not above it.

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 ('Returns the full information sheet of an event on sale on Webtic') and enumerates exactly what the sheet contains: plot, genre, year, duration, director, cast, author, company, trailer, poster, and scheduled provinces with venue counts. The scope boundary against get_event_venues and against schedule data is legible 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?

Supplies concrete trigger questions ('what is X about', 'who is in X', 'how long is X', 'where is X showing') and an explicit exclusion: dates, showtimes and prices are not available here and live on the webtic.it links. It does not name sibling tools such as search_events for obtaining the eventId, so routing to alternatives is clear only for the schedule case.

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