ticketweb_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the transparency burden and provides useful behavioral context: it clarifies that a zero count with an empty events list is a valid no-results response rather than an error, and documents the availability enum values. This is meaningful beyond the schema, though it does not address pagination or rate-limit behavior.

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 compact at three sentences, but the first sentence is redundant with the second and with the tool name. The genuinely useful details (no-results semantics and availability values) are packed at the end, which slightly hurts scannability.

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 simple search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the query scope, a critical response edge case, and a key field's allowed values. It is reasonably complete, although it leaves the overall event response structure unspecified.

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 parameters are already fully documented. The description's phrase 'by artist, event, or venue' restates the q parameter's schema description without adding new meaning, and the page parameter is only covered by the schema.

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 clearly states it searches TicketWeb events by artist, event, or venue, which identifies the resource and the query basis. However, it opens with a near-tautological first sentence ('Search TicketWeb events') and does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like ticketweb_event or ticketweb_venue.

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?

No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over alternatives. The description does not mention that ticketweb_event should be used for a specific event's details or ticketweb_venue for venue info, leaving the agent to infer placement among many similar search tools.

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