ticketweb_event

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full transparency burden and does so exceptionally. It discloses exactly what fields are returned, when ticket pricing appears, and explains the shared observable state for free/RSVP, sold-out, and access-code-gated events rather than pretending to distinguish them.

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 front-loaded with the tool's verb and resource, uses one sentence to enumerate return contents, and one to clarify an important edge case. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 single-parameter fetch with no output schema, the description fully specifies expected content and edge-case behavior. An agent can predict the response shape and knows the limitations of the data source, making the tool reliably invocable.

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 sole parameter `id` is already fully documented in the schema as 'Numeric TicketWeb event id' (100% schema coverage). The description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter itself, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a TicketWeb event') and clearly scopes it to a single event by ID, returning normalized details. This differentiates it from sibling tools like ticketweb_search and ticketweb_venue, which handle discovery and venue data.

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 usage: call this when you have a TicketWeb event ID and want normalized event details. However, it never explicitly contrasts this with ticketweb_search or ticketweb_venue, nor states conditions under which an alternative should be preferred.

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