concert_add

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the non-obvious side effects an agent could not infer: playlist creation, an external setlist.fm lookup, and a chat reply. It also reveals the NO_REPLY sentinel output. It doesn't address re-run/duplicate behavior beyond "once per ticket" or permission needs, so not a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its effects, then the call contract, then the sentinel rule. Every sentence changes agent behavior and nothing is decorative.

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 5-param, zero-required, side-effect-heavy tool, the description covers inputs, call cadence, and the NO_REPLY outcome. With no output schema, it could say more about what a successful result looks like, which is the one meaningful 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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds value by naming which fields to prioritize (artist, start, venue) and by telling the agent to pass whole unedited ticket text into source_text, which the schema alone frames less directive.

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?

A specific verb+resource (add a concert to the calendar) followed by an enumeration of bundled side effects (teaser playlist, setlist.fm lookup, chat reply) that makes the composite nature unmistakable. It doesn't name a sibling, but the side-effect list implicitly separates it from plain calendar_add.

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?

"Call once per ticket" and "as read from the ticket" give explicit invocation guidance, plus the NO_REPLY handling rule. It stops short of saying when to prefer calendar_add or how to handle non-ticket events, so no real exclusion criteria.

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