Parse lineup text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds the meaningful behavior that it strips dates, stage names and ticket lines from the input. The one ambiguity is that it says it drops 'stage names' while also producing 'days and stages', which is slightly self-tensioned, but not a contradiction of annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core transformation before the optional alternative. The second sentence packs the skip-path and the tier vocabulary together, which is dense but each clause is load-bearing; no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does describe the produced structure (artist list with tiers/days/stages). It stops short of specifying the exact output format, but for a single-parameter read-only parser it is sufficiently complete.

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 0% on the single 'text' parameter, but the description compensates by characterizing the expected input as 'raw poster text (as read from an image or pasted)', which is exactly the semantics an agent needs. It doesn't state the length bounds (already in schema), so it's not a full 5.

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 states a specific transformation: raw poster text in, a clean artist list with tiers, days and stages out, explicitly dropping dates/stage names/'tickets' lines. This is a distinct verb+resource that an agent can separate from create_draft and the other playlist siblings.

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?

It goes beyond naming a use case and gives an explicit conditional alternative: 'when you can already see the poster, you may skip this and pass structured artists straight to create_draft.' It even supplies the tier vocabulary (headliner/sub/undercard) needed to take that alternative path, leaving nothing to inference.

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