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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description does add real value beyond that by enumerating what the payload contains (full bill, time, price, ages, sold-out status, editorial note, venue address/capacity/bag policy/transit) and imposing the 'Always cite url' output convention. It adds nothing about rate limits, auth, or error behavior (e.g. unknown id), so a 3 is right.

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 identity and id sourcing in the first clause, then the use case, then the return contents. It is dense but every element (bill, time, price, ages, sold out, note, room facts) maps to a real payload field. The long comma-separated enumeration makes it slightly harder to scan than a shorter sentence would.

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?

A simple read-only lookup with two parameters and no output schema, so the description carries the return-shape burden and does so convincingly by naming the fields returned. Missing only failure behavior for an invalid id and the meaning of `via`, which the schema already covers.

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%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: it tells the agent where a valid id originates (any list result or the id= query param of a foobos.net/e/ link). It says nothing about `via`, which the schema documents fully as a UTM source with a default.

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+resource (fetch one show by id) and disambiguates from sibling list/search tools by explaining the id comes 'from any list here, or the id= in a foobos.net/e/ link' and that it works 'in either city'. An agent can tell immediately this is a single-record detail lookup rather than a listing.

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 concrete triggering intent, 'Use for “tell me more about that one”', which clearly separates it from list/search siblings by implying the list-first-then-detail flow. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name search_shows as the alternative for discovery, so it falls 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.