List Tickera Events

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

With readOnlyHint=true, the safety profile is already clear. The description adds value by stating what fields are returned and that all events are listed, which gives a sense of scope beyond the annotation. However, it does not mention potential pagination or result limits, 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose and key fields without any fluff or redundancy.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return information. It could mention pagination or filtering constraints, but 'all events' conveys scope sufficiently for most use cases.

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% for the single response_format parameter, which includes a clear enum and description. The tool description does not need to repeat this, and it correctly focuses on the tool's purpose.

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 'List all Tickera events (tc_events)' and specifies the resource and included fields (date, location, status, linked ticket-type products). This distinguishes it from siblings like tickera_get_event (single event) and tickera_create_event (creation).

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 description implies usage as a list-all operation, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over tickera_get_event or tickera_list_ticket_types. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided, leaving the decision somewhat implicit.

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