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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the read:account scope requirement, default/limit pagination bounds, and the edge case that some accounts follow thousands of performers so pagination.has_more should be surfaced to users.

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-loads the trigger condition, then auth/scope, then sibling pairing, then pagination behavior. Every sentence carries a distinct operational instruction with no filler.

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?

Output schema is present so return values need no explanation, yet the description still references pagination.has_more to tell the agent how to interpret and phrase results. Nothing needed to call or report this tool correctly is missing.

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 both limit and offset are already documented in the schema. The description restates the same 25/200/offset facts without adding syntax or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 resource ('list the performers they've favorited') plus the marketplace scope, which cleanly separates it from siblings like list_my_listings, list_my_standing_bids, and search_performers.

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?

Opens with 'Use when an authenticated user wants...' and supplies concrete trigger utterances, the auth/read:account prerequisite, and an explicit pairing with search_events for the follow-on ticket lookup. An agent knows exactly when to pick this over search_performers.

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