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.