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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, closed-world safety, and an output schema exists, so the description isn't carrying the safety burden. It still adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: that prices are fee-inclusive get-in prices, that open-listing counts signal offer viability, and that the read is 'live' rather than cached.

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-loaded with what the tool returns, then routing, then exclusions — a sensible information order with no filler sentences. It runs slightly long because the sibling routing is repeated across three sentences (search_events twice, list_open_listings once), which costs a bit of tightness.

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 search tool with a full output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs to select it correctly: scope, price semantics, sibling routing, and exclusions. Return-format explanation is exempt thanks to the output schema, so nothing material 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 all six parameters including date filters and cbsa synonyms are already documented; that sets the baseline at 3. The description adds only indirect guidance via example queries ('cheap seats near me', 'season opener'), which hint at natural-language query phrasing but add nothing about date resolution or limit behavior 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('live market read for an event') plus the exact payload: fee-inclusive get-in price and count of open fan listings. It explicitly contrasts itself with search_events and points to list_open_listings for the listing-level view, so an agent can place it among siblings without opening schemas.

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 an explicit positive trigger ('whenever price is the question or the user might make an offer rather than pay the asking price') with concrete example phrasings, plus explicit negative routing: search_events for plain discovery, list_open_listings for the listings themselves, and a hard exclusion for scores/news/standings. Both the when and the when-not are named, with alternatives.

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