seatgeek_venue_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers meaningful behavioral detail: it returns only one page of results (pagination behavior), only upcoming events, and orders them soonest first. It also clarifies the id provenance with a concrete example. It does not disclose response structure, but for a simple read-style list tool this is sufficient context.

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?

Three sentences, no filler, and each sentence earns its place: the first states the action, the second defines the scope and ordering, and the third clarifies the key parameter. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 straightforward list tool with three fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs to select and invoke it correctly: the resource, the pagination behavior, the ordering, and the id semantics. It could have noted how to fetch subsequent pages or what fields events contain, but those are minor gaps given the schema descriptions and the tool's simple nature.

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 all three parameters, providing the baseline of 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that venue_id is SeatGeek's own numeric id, should come from a search or event result, and giving a concrete example (1 for UNIQLO Field at Dodger Stadium). This is genuinely useful disambiguation for an agent.

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 ('Get a SeatGeek venue's event schedule') and immediately distinguishes itself from related tools by specifying scope: a single venue's upcoming events, one page at a time, sorted soonest first. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like seatgeek_search, seatgeek_venue, and seatgeek_event without needing to open any schemas.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you have a venue id and want its calendar of upcoming events. It also explains how the venue_id is obtained ('from a search or event result'), which orients the agent toward the prerequisite step. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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