Get Luma ticket type

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so there is no contradiction. The description does not add behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as return format, error behavior, or implications of the open-world hint, but the safety profile is already covered.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary context.

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 one-parameter, read-only getter with a readOnlyHint annotation, this description is largely sufficient: it names the operation, resource, and lookup key. It does not describe the return shape or not-found behavior, but these are minor gaps for such a simple tool.

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 provides 0% description coverage for the single parameter, so the description must compensate. It identifies event_ticket_type_id as the ticket-type ID, but that largely restates the property name and adds no details about where the ID comes from or any format expectations.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('one ticket type'), and a selection criterion ('by its ticket-type ID'). This immediately differentiates it from siblings like list_ticket_types and the mutation-focused ticket-type tools.

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 when to use it: when the agent has a specific ticket-type ID and needs a single record. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, such as 'use list_ticket_types to fetch all ticket types.'

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