Canonical cross-venue event identity

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the tool is free and public, requires no API key, never price-infers orientation, maintains an append-only judgment lineage, and prevents 404s for merged canonicals. These are meaningful behavioral traits not present in annotations.

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?

Though somewhat long, the description is densely informative and well-structured: definition, mode explanation, edge-case behavior, usage context, and auth note. Every sentence contributes useful, non-redundant information.

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?

Given the read-only nature, full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description covers all important context: invocation modes, pagination cursor, merged behavior, provenance details, and authentication. There are no obvious missing pieces.

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 already covers all three parameters in detail, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that `key` accepts a UUID or slug and that omitting it triggers list mode, plus that `limit` and `cursor` only apply in list mode. This goes beyond the schema but does not fully re-describe every parameter.

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 purpose: a stable cross-venue identity for one real-world question, independent of venue slugs. It clearly distinguishes two invocation modes (list directory vs full record by key) and differentiates from generic event tools by emphasizing durable canonical identity.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Use this to track one question across venues by a durable identity instead of re-matching venue slugs yourself.' It also clarifies the omit-key vs pass-key modes. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools or explicitly say when not to use them.

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