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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the result is a single page and events are ordered soonest-first, which matters for consuming or paginating output.

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?

Two sentences, no filler: the first front-loads what is returned and its ordering, the second covers the key input's provenance. Every clause earns its place.

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 an output schema present and full parameter description coverage, the description needn't explain return fields. It supplies purpose, ordering, pagination hint, and input sourcing—everything an agent needs to select and call the tool correctly.

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%, making 3 the baseline. The description goes slightly beyond the schema by clarifying that performer_id is SeatGeek's own numeric id obtained from seatgeek_search, adding a sourcing detail that the schema example 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 names a specific verb+resource: it returns a performer's upcoming event schedule and clarifies that a 'performer' spans sports teams, artists, or shows. This is clearly distinct from venue-based siblings, though it never explicitly names an alternative tool to sharpen the contrast.

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 provides a concrete prerequisite workflow by stating performer_id comes from seatgeek_search, which tells the agent how to obtain a valid input. It lacks any when-not-to-use or explicit comparison against siblings like seatgeek_venue_events, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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