pifini

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

Discloses that it returns a checkout URL to be given to the human, tickets are emailed after payment, and requires human confirmation. Lacks mention of ticket reservation or lock duration, but sufficient for safe invocation.

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 focused sentences with no filler. First sentence states purpose, second explains output and process, third gives critical usage guidance. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Covers creation, return value (URL), email delivery, required prior step (get_event), and safety confirmation. No output schema exists, but description adequately explains expected outcome.

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?

Adds workflow context beyond schema: explains where to get ticket_type_id, that buyer_email must be asked from human, and that items array structure is validated. Schema coverage is 100%, so description enhances but doesn't replace.

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?

Clearly states it creates a Stripe-hosted payment link for event tickets, differentiating from sibling tools like get_event that retrieve ticket type IDs. The verb 'create' and resource 'payment link' are specific.

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 instructs to get ticket_type_id from get_event and to always confirm tickets and total with the human before calling, providing clear when-to-use and prerequisites.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses what data is returned (description, venue, date/time, ticket details) and implies it is a read operation. Could mention error scenarios but not required for this simple tool.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose and output, followed by usage guidance.

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?

For a single-parameter retrieval tool without output schema, the description fully explains the return fields and input source, making it complete for selection and invocation.

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%, baseline 3. The description reinforces the slug source from search_events but adds no new semantic information beyond the schema's own description ('Event slug from search_events').

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 clearly states it retrieves full details for one event by slug, listing specific fields (description, venue, date/time, ticket types with prices and remaining stock). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_events by specifying the input 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?

Explicitly instructs to use the slug from search_events, indicating proper input sourcing and implicit distinction from sibling search tools. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but for a simple retrieval this is adequate.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must bear full transparency burden. It discloses that it returns only the most recent reviews and includes a verified-attendee flag, but does not mention other behavioral traits like permissions or rate limits. Adequate for a simple read operation.

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?

The description is two sentences long, no wasted words, and front-loads the key information about what details and reviews are returned.

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?

Given the low complexity of one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains the input source and return content. Slightly incomplete for not specifying that no output schema exists, but not critical.

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 schema description of 'slug' already says 'Place slug from search_places'. The description adds no new semantic value beyond reiterating that, so baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves full details for one place by slug, including recent reviews, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_places which return lists.

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?

The description explicitly instructs to use the slug from search_places, providing clear context for when to use this tool. It lacks explicit when-not statements but the usage is effectively implied.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return fields and geographic coverage, which is helpful, but does not mention authentication, rate limits, pagination, or whether the tool is read-only. For a search tool, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediate value. Every sentence adds unique information (function, return fields, coverage), with no wasted words.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains return fields (names, dates, locations, URLs) and mentions strongest coverage areas. It implies that only future events are returned by default, which aligns with the include_past parameter. Slightly more detail could be given about the free-text query nature, but overall it is comprehensive.

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 schema already describes each parameter well. The description does not add further meaning about parameters beyond what is in the schema, so baseline score 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?

Description clearly states it searches for specific types of events (festivals, concerts, etc.) across defined regions, and lists return fields. Distinguishes from siblings like get_event (single event) and search_places (places).

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?

The description implies usage for finding events in the specified regions, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like get_event for specific events or search_places for locations. No when-not or exclusions provided.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that results with is_sponsored are paid placements and instructs to disclose, adding important context. However, it lacks other behavioral details like pagination or rate limits.

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?

The description is concise with three sentences: purpose, filters, and sponsored disclosure. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no output schema and 6 optional parameters, the description covers the search purpose, examples, filtering, and sponsored disclosure. It lacks pagination behavior and response hints, but overall it is reasonably complete for a simple search 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema by listing example types and mentioning filter options, but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool searches reviewed places, listing many specific types (restaurants, bars, etc.) and explicitly mentions filtering. It distinguishes from siblings like get_place and search_events.

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?

The description implies usage for searching places and businesses, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_place for a single place or search_events for events.

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