seatgeek_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds a meaningful caveat that any of the three result lists may come back empty for queries with no matches in that type, which prevents an agent from assuming all three are always populated. It doesn't describe exact return shape, but for a simple read-only search this is reasonable coverage.

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 three sentences with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the final sentence earns its place by warning about potentially empty result lists.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with only two parameters, one required, and 100% schema coverage. The description clearly covers what is searched and the empty-list behavior, which is enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. The lack of an exact output format is mitigated by the simple result-list framing, and the main missing piece is sibling routing, which is a usage-guidance gap rather than a completeness failure.

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 input schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage: q is 'Free-text search query' and limit is 'Maximum results per result type (events/performers/venues), 1-50.' The description reinforces the free-text nature and the three result types but adds no meaningful parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search SeatGeek events, performers, and venues.' It is clear that this is a free-text search across SeatGeek's catalog, and the scope inherently separates it from single-entity sibling tools like seatgeek_event or seatgeek_venue. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 gives useful context by identifying this as the generic free-text entry point, 'the same call the site's own search box and search-results page use.' However, it never states when not to use it or points to alternatives such as seatgeek_events_by_category, seatgeek_events_near, or seatgeek_performer_events, so the usage guidance remains mostly implied.

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