Get Tickera Event

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds a useful detail about including ticket-type products, but it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as response format specifics, pagination, or error handling. This is consistent with the high-score calibration example where annotations cover safety and the description adds modest context.

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, clear sentence that conveys the essential purpose and key additional detail (ticket-type products) without any 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?

For a simple read-only operation with only two parameters (one required) and no nested objects, the description is mostly complete. It mentions the inclusion of ticket-type products, but could further clarify the return value format. Since there is no output schema, a slightly more explicit return description would have made it fully complete.

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 schema descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, including the event_id as a tc_events post ID and the response_format enum. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get', the specific resource ('one Tickera event by ID'), and additional scope ('including its ticket-type products'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like tickera_list_events (which lists events) and tickera_create_event (which creates 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?

The context is implied: this tool is for fetching a single event by its ID, while tickera_list_events is for retrieving multiple events. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of alternatives, so the guidance relies on the purpose statement.

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