seatgeek_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the nature of the returned data (aggregate pricing snapshot only) and explicitly states limitations ('no per-seat listing rows and no checkout/purchase flow'), making clear this is a read-only informational tool. It does not explicitly label itself as read-only, but the context is strong.

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 paragraph but well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and then detailing return fields. Each sentence contributes information; the pricing snapshot explanation is thorough without being redundant. Slightly long but justified by the complexity of the return data.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description must explain the return values. It does so comprehensively, listing all major fields and detailing the pricing snapshot metrics and its limitations. An agent has enough information to understand what to expect and how to use the result.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the parameter. The description adds valuable context by explaining how to obtain the id ('obtained from a search or performer-events result') and reinforcing that it is SeatGeek's own numeric event id, which goes beyond the schema's minimal description.

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?

Clearly states the verb (Get) and resource (SeatGeek event's detail), and enumerates the specific fields returned (title, timing, venue, performers, category taxonomy, pricing snapshot). This distinguishes it from sibling search/trending tools which operate on collections rather than a single event.

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?

Provides guidance on when to use it by stating the id is 'obtained from a search or performer-events result,' which implies the appropriate sequence. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some inference required.

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