KiedyKoncert.pl

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

Annotations already state that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world operation, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds meaningful behavior: the source site, inclusion of the artist page link, typo tolerance, and candidate results for ambiguous artist names.

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 definition is compact and front-loads the core purpose, scope, source, and link behavior. The trailing Polish sentence is a minor redundancy for English-only readers but is consistent with the bilingual title and does not obscure the main content.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies enough context to call it correctly. It covers scope, source, fuzzy matching, ambiguous-name behavior, and the presence of an artist page link.

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?

The schema fully documents the single artist parameter with an example, so the baseline is already strong. The description adds useful semantics by explaining that typos are tolerated and ambiguous names produce candidate results, which directly affects how the agent should provide the artist name.

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 states a specific verb and resource: upcoming concert dates for one artist or band in Poland, from KiedyKoncert.pl, with the artist page link. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly differentiate this lookup from siblings like search_concerts or get_concert.

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 usage context is implied by the one-artist, upcoming-dates-in-Poland scope, and it explains how typos and ambiguous names are handled. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternative tools for broader searches or individual concert details.

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?

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat safety details. It adds useful context beyond annotations by specifying the returned scope, noting ticket sellers are names only, and mentioning the data source and last-confirmed date.

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 main sentence is front-loaded and dense with useful information, though the long field enumeration is slightly heavy. The bilingual repeat is concise and does not distract significantly.

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?

This is a simple read tool with rich annotations, full schema description coverage, and an output schema. The description adds enough about identifiers and returned content that an agent has all needed context to call it correctly.

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 documents both id and url with examples and constraints. The description only restates that either an id or a concert page URL may be used, without adding format or selection guidance 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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieving details of one concert by id or concert page URL, and enumerates the exact fields returned. The single-concert scope clearly distinguishes it from search_concerts and artist_tour.

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?

Usage is implied: use it when you need details for a known concert, supplied by id or URL. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus search_concerts or state any prerequisites or exclusions.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the shape of the returned records, which is largely duplicated by the existing output schema. No pagination, caching, or ordering behavior is disclosed.

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?

One front-loaded sentence; the field list is the most useful part and appears early. The trailing Polish line is redundant boilerplate that adds no new information for an agent (and merely mirrors the bilingual title).

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 zero-parameter lookup with a full annotation set and an output schema, this description supplies everything needed to call it correctly. The only gap is the implied rather than stated 'call before search_concerts' sequencing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline applies. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter semantics.

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 (lists music genres) and names the fields returned (slug, Polish name, upcoming concert count), which is far more informative than the bare name. It also anchors itself to a sibling via 'for the genre filter of search_concerts', though it doesn't formally compare against get_concert or artist_tour.

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?

'For the genre filter of search_concerts' implies the workflow use (fetch slugs before filtering), but this is inference rather than an explicit 'use this when' instruction. No exclusions or alternatives are stated, so the agent must connect the dots itself.

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?

Beyond the read-only annotations, the description discloses pagination behavior, the 20-result cap, total match counts, returned fields including cancelled status, and date-range defaults. This gives the agent substantial operational context for calling and interpreting the 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?

The description is front-loaded with scope, filters, and return behavior, and it is compact for a 9-parameter search tool. The bilingual Polish sentence largely repeats the English content, so it is not maximally concise, but the structure is 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?

Given the rich input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description is complete enough: it covers search scope, filters, defaults, pagination, and return fields. An agent has what it needs to invoke the tool correctly without reading additional documentation.

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 already 100%, so the schema carries most parameter meaning. The description still adds useful semantics, such as typo tolerance for artist searches, Polish locality with radius, and the `when` shortcut as an alternative to explicit dates.

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 states a specific verb and resource: searching upcoming concerts in Poland on KiedyKoncert.pl, with named filters and return scope. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like artist_tour or get_concert, but the broad search purpose is clear.

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?

It explains useful default behavior, such as the next-60-days range and artist-without-dates behavior, which helps an agent use it correctly. However, it never states when to choose this tool over artist_tour or get_concert, nor when not to use it.

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