events-search

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

With no annotations, the description adds value by noting that free places and price are snapshots at _meta.indexed_at, indicating potential staleness. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like authentication, rate limits, or idempotency, leaving some gaps.

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 with no superfluous words: first sentence states the core action and returned fields, second adds a key caveat about snapshot timing. Highly efficient and front-loaded.

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?

The description lists the returned fields but does not detail their types, structure, or error conditions. Given no output schema, an agent might need to infer response format. Adequate for a simple tool but not fully self-contained.

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 describes event_id as a performance identifier. The description adds value by specifying that event_id is obtained from search_events or list_performances results, which provides crucial usage context beyond the schema.

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 that the tool returns a single performance identified by event_id, lists the returned fields, and explicitly derives event_id from sibling tools (search_events or list_performances), distinguishing it from those list-returning tools.

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 explains that event_id must come from search_events or list_performances, providing clear context for when to use this tool. It implicitly suggests not using it for searching or listing, but lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or alternative explanation.

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; description is adequate in describing output but does not disclose behaviors like idempotency or resource consumption. It implies a read operation but lacks explicit behavioral statements.

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 that front-load purpose and detail return structure. 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?

Given no output schema and one parameter, description covers return structure well and links to sibling tool for further details. Lacks notes on pagination or limits, but overall sufficient.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage; description reinforces schema by specifying source (search_events). Adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema.

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 returns a single title on sale, identified by artist_id, and specifies the content of 'title' and 'cities'. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing list_performances for individual dates.

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 states to use artist_id from search_events and suggests using list_performances for individual dates, providing clear when-to-use guidance.

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 full burden. It discloses that only future performances are returned unless date_from is specified, and describes the return structure (venue, date, price, free places, buy_url). However, it does not mention pagination behavior (e.g., how to get next page, total count) or ordering direction, which are relevant for usage.

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 three sentences, with the main purpose in the first sentence. Every sentence provides essential information without filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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, the description explains return fields (venue, date, price, free places, buy_url) and ordering. It also covers filtering and default behavior. However, it lacks information on error handling, empty results, and pagination structuring (e.g., how to navigate pages), making it slightly incomplete.

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 significant value: it explains that artist_id comes from search_events results, clarifies that date_from defaults to today (schema says null), and specifies exact match behavior for city (case-insensitive, diacritics required). This exceeds the schema descriptions.

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 verb 'lists', the resource 'performances of a single title', and the ordering and optional filters. It explicitly differentiates from sibling tool search_events by stating that search_events returns only the nearest performance per title.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use this when the user asks for all dates of a title, or for its dates in a given city or on a given weekend' and contrasts with search_events which returns only the nearest performance. This clearly specifies when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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?

Discloses deduplication by title, result structure with aggregates, typo-tolerance, Polish content, snapshot freshness of prices, and date formats. Since no annotations exist, the description fully carries transparency.

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-loaded with purpose, then logically flows to filtering behavior, deduplication, aggregates, sibling guidance, and field format details. Every sentence adds value without repetition.

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, the description thoroughly explains return fields (buy_url, venue, price, free places, aggregates, meta.indexed_at) and sorting/facets usage. It is self-contained for effective tool 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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds critical context: all filters apply to a single performance, results are deduped by title, and aggregates are included. This enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 performances on Biletyna.pl, listing specific event types. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning list_performances and get_title_details for alternative use cases.

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 advises when to use sibling tools: 'Use list_performances(artist_id) for all dates of a title, get_title_details(artist_id) for its description and all cities.' Also clarifies scope (future performances only unless date_from is set).

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