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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partially covered. The description nonetheless adds value beyond them by specifying that this is discovery only and 'does not purchase a ticket' — a meaningful clarification for a ticketed-event tool — plus disclosure that it surfaces live ticket availability.

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 that are front-loaded with the return contents, followed by provenance and read-only framing. No wasted clauses and no repetition, though it is slightly dense with the per-tier enumeration.

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, return values need not be explained in depth, yet the description still characterizes the payload usefully. Required params, provenance, and the read-only/no-purchase stance are all covered, leaving nothing critical missing for a detail-lookup tool.

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 all four parameters, including provenance ('from a prior resy-events result'). The description's restatement of those sources adds little beyond the schema, and party_size is not mentioned at all, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (a Resy ticketed dining event's full detail) and enumerates exactly what is returned: event description, event-day instructions, and per-ticket-tier package breakdown with price/inclusions/availability. It is clearly distinguishable from resy_events, which it references as the discovery source.

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?

Gives a clear precondition: eventUrlSlug/restaurantUrlSlug/location all come from a prior resy_events result, which implies the correct call sequence. It also clarifies the tool does not purchase a ticket. It does not, however, draw any contrast with siblings like resy_availability or resy_restaurant, so no explicit exclusions are given.

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