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

Annotations already declare a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds real value by disclosing that results are merged from three sources including a live order book, and that the feed is meant to tee up a follow-on `get_ticket_listings` call. It stops short of covering latency, pricing freshness, or how partial/empty venue data is handled.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by usage triggers, expected return, and exclusion — a sensible order. It runs slightly long, with the quoted example phrasings and the return-value sentence partially overlapping, but nothing is truly wasteful.

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 covers return shape and annotations cover safety, so the description only needs selection guidance and scope — both are present, including the boundary against the sibling ticketing 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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, which already says it is the 'Venue identifier from search_venues.' The description reinforces the search_venues provenance but adds no format or edge-case guidance beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 composite resource: full venue info from XP, the upcoming-events calendar, and live resale pricing from the connected order book. It clearly separates itself from get_ticket_listings and get_event_details, so an agent can pick it without opening a schema.

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?

Gives the preceding step (after `search_venues`), concrete trigger phrasings ('what's coming up at the venue', 'shows at the venue this month'), and an explicit exclusion: do not use for a specific event's seat-level inventory — use `get_ticket_listings` instead.

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