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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral note — any result type may be empty for a query — which warns the agent about partial/empty responses. It does not cover pagination or result ordering, so not 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?

Two sentences, zero filler. Purpose and result-type scope are front-loaded, with the alternative-tool routing following. 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. The description covers purpose, sibling routing, and empty-result behavior, and annotations cover safety. Complete enough to invoke correctly, with only minor gaps (no mention of ordering or rate limits).

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%: 'q' is documented as a required free-text query with examples, and 'limit' as max results per result type (1-50, default 10). The description adds no param-level detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (Search) and resource (SeatGeek's catalog for events, performers, and venues), and names the sibling detail tools (seatgeek_event, seatgeek_performer, seatgeek_venue) that this tool is not. An agent can distinguish it from those siblings 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this for discovery, then use seatgeek_event/seatgeek_performer/seatgeek_venue for a selected result. Clear alternative-selection context, though it stops short of stating when-not to search (e.g. when an ID is already known).

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