BileteLive.ro

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a modest scoping fact (results are public and future-dated) but says nothing about result size, ambiguity of the artist name, or how the limit affects output.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and scope first and zero filler. Nothing to trim.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the core lookup intent is covered. However, for a two-parameter tool with zero schema documentation, the missing explanation of the limit parameter leaves a real gap.

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 0%, so the description carries full burden, and it only loosely clarifies the 'artist' parameter ('artist or performer'). The 'limit' parameter is completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving its default/purpose unexplained.

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 (find) and resource (upcoming public events for an artist/performer) and names the domain (BileteLive). The 'for an artist or performer' phrasing implicitly separates it from the venue-oriented sibling get_venue_events, though it never names or contrasts a sibling explicitly.

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 words 'upcoming public' imply the scope of use, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to alternatives such as search_events or get_venue_events. Usage is inferable at best.

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 and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful qualifier 'public details' (visibility scope), but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior for an unknown slug.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the essential information (verb, resource, key) leads. It is perhaps too terse to be maximally useful, but nothing is padded.

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 output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. What remains missing is sibling differentiation and slug-validity/error context, which matters for a lookup tool with a 0%-documented parameter.

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 0% with one parameter ('slug'), so the description carries the burden. It only restates that lookup is by slug, adding no format, casing, or validity guidance beyond the schema's parameter 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get public details for one BileteLive event') with an identifying key ('by slug'), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like search_events or get_event_booking_url, which also concern 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?

Usage is only implied: single lookup by a known slug versus the list-oriented siblings (search_events, get_venue_events, get_artist_events). No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative is given.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the 'canonical' and 'public event' qualifiers; it never says what happens for a non-public event (error vs. empty) or whether the URL is stable across calls.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Efficient, though it is short to the point of leaving gaps rather than because it is optimally scoped.

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 output schema covers the return value and annotations cover safety, so the remaining burden is small for a 1-param lookup. Still, the undefined slug and unspecified behavior for inaccessible events leave the definition only minimally viable.

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 0% for the single parameter, and the description does not compensate: it never explains what a 'slug' is, where it comes from, or its format. The agent must guess it identifies an event.

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 and resource ('Get the canonical ... booking URL') and scopes it to a 'public event', which distinguishes it from sibling get_event (details) at a high level. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_event, even though the two tools clearly overlap on event lookup. The agent must infer that this is the 'URL-only' shortcut.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the data is anonymous and omits reservation identity, which tells the agent what is deliberately absent from the result.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and followed by the privacy constraint. Every clause earns its place, though the second sentence slightly restates 'anonymous' rather than extending it.

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 read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is adequate but thin. The main gap is routing: it never explains how this differs from get_ticket_availability, which is the primary ambiguity an agent faces.

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 one parameter (slug) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains what the slug identifies. With an output schema present but no parameter documentation, the description leaves the sole input under-specified.

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 gives a specific verb and resource (table capacities/availability for a seated event) and even scopes the data as anonymous. It is clear on its own but never names or contrasts with the very close sibling get_ticket_availability, so an agent must infer which availability endpoint applies.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when this should be preferred over get_ticket_availability or get_event. The 'seated event' phrase hints at context but is not framed as a selection rule.

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 openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by scoping the result to 'public' ticket types and explicitly stating 'Returns no customer data', which tells the agent about data exposure and output boundaries.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the output caveat second. No filler or 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be fully described, and rich read-only annotations mean no mutability caveats are needed. The remaining gap is that the required 'slug' identifier and its expected value are never explained, which matters for a single-required-param 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 description coverage is 0% for the single 'slug' parameter, so the schema contributes nothing. The description only indirectly implies the slug identifies an event ('for an event'), without stating the format, source, or whether it is the event slug or some other identifier, so it partially but not fully compensates.

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 and resource ('Get current public ticket types, prices, and inventory for an event') and names what is returned, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_event or get_table_availability. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternative named. The word 'current' hints at real-time data, but nothing tells the agent whether to call this versus get_event, get_table_availability, or get_event_booking_url.

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?

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation with a closed-world scope. The description adds useful behavioral filtering context with 'upcoming public' and the optional city narrowing, but does not disclose pagination, result ordering, or how the limit parameter affects behavior.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It efficiently communicates the core action, scope, and optional narrowing.

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 output schema covers return values and the annotations cover safety, so the description does not need to explain those. However, for a three-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage, the description should clarify the limit parameter and provide more usage differentiation from siblings; as written, it is adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains the venue parameter and the optional city narrowing, but completely omits the limit parameter, leaving one of three parameters without semantic context beyond its name and 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?

The description states a clear verb and resource: finding upcoming public BileteLive events at a venue, optionally narrowed by city. It implicitly distinguishes itself from get_artist_events by focusing on a venue rather than an artist, but does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool.

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 by the phrase 'at a venue,' which suggests this is the tool for venue-scoped event lookup. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus search_events, get_artist_events, or other siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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, non-destructive and a closed-world register, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real constraints beyond that — results are limited to 'upcoming' and 'public' events — but says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or how multiple filters combine.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the filter list is compact and every clause carries information.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers most filter dimensions. Gaps remain for an eight-parameter, all-optional search: limit behavior and AND/OR interaction of filters are unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does map the filter dimensions (text, city, artist, venue, category, ISO-8601 date range) onto most of the eight parameters. However, 'limit' is never mentioned, the query parameter's matching semantics are unstated, and ISO-8601 is the only format hint given.

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 gives a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('upcoming public BileteLive events') plus the filter dimensions supported. It is clearly distinguishable from narrower siblings like get_artist_events or get_venue_events, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this broad search versus get_artist_events, get_venue_events, or get_event, nor any note on combining filters. Usage is only implicitly inferable from the word 'Search'.

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