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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations by disclosing the non-obvious cost model: each marketplace captured is a separate billed capture, bounded by max_marketplaces. It still doesn't say what happens when an event isn't found on a marketplace or whether partial results are returned, so it's strong but not complete.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then cost, then the cap. The final sentence largely duplicates the schema's max_marketplaces default, which costs it a point.

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 does the necessary work of explaining the return shape (cheapest tickets ranked by all-in price for a quantity). Only failure modes and the exact cost per capture remain unstated.

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 coverage is 100%, so event/quantity/top/max_marketplaces are already documented. The description repeats the max_marketplaces default (already in schema) and adds no format guidance for the event parameter, so it earns baseline only.

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 multi-step action: resolve one event, capture it on every marketplace, rank results by all-in price for a given quantity. It names the ranking criterion (fees included), which is the distinguishing value versus single-marketplace siblings like get_listings or get_seat_map.

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 its niche (cross-marketplace price comparison for a ticket quantity) but never explicitly says when to prefer it over get_listings or find_events, nor when not to use it. An agent must infer the routing from context rather than being told.

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

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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world behavior, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real value: results include each event's URL across eight named marketplaces, and 'Never billed' signals no cost to the caller. It stops short of describing pagination or how many results are returned.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and lookup keys, with the marketplace list placed in a parenthetical rather than leading. The trailing 'Never billed' is a slight non sequitur but is short and useful.

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 return-shape duty and does so by explaining that results pair each event with its URLs on multiple marketplaces. The main gap is how the from/to date filters interact with 'upcoming' and what the result set ordering is.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description extends the meaning of `query` beyond the schema's examples by stating it accepts performer names, venue names, and any marketplace event URL (not just StubHub). The from/to window is only loosely implied by 'upcoming'.

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 (find) and resource (upcoming events), plus the accepted lookup keys (name, performer, venue, marketplace URL) and the distinctive cross-marketplace URL aggregation. This clearly separates it from get_listings and compare_prices, which operate on an already-identified event.

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 this is the discovery entry point before get_listings/compare_prices/get_seat_map, but it never names those siblings or states when not to use it. An agent can infer the workflow, but nothing explicit routes it.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: each marketplace capture is billed, and a listing disappearing is not proof of a sale, which prevents an important misinterpretation.

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 core purpose and uses three efficient sentences with no filler. Every sentence adds value: what is returned, the billing implication, and the sold/delisted/repriced caveat.

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 read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it enumerates the returned fields, ordering, billing implication, and interpretation caveat. It would be stronger if it explicitly positioned itself against compare_prices and get_seat_map, but the essential call context is present.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds useful output/ordering context such as all-in price per ticket and cheapest first, but it does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the verb and resource: it returns every live listing on one marketplace event page, with concrete fields like section, row, seats, prices, and ordering. This is easy to distinguish from list_marketplaces, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with compare_prices or get_seat_map, so it falls short of full sibling 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?

Usage is implied by the scope: one event page URL, live listings, cheapest first. The schema mentions that the URL comes from find_events or the user, but the description itself gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives such as compare_prices or get_seat_map.

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

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses a genuine operational trait: each marketplace captured is one billed Tickets.dev capture, which matters for cost-aware invocation. It also flags that capacity is only present 'where the marketplace gives one', warning of partial data. No detail on failure modes for unsupported marketplaces.

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 compact sentences: the first front-loads exactly what is returned, the second carries the billing caveat. No filler, and the cost note is separated so it is easy to scan.

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 does the work of naming the return fields (SVG URLs, per-section all-in price, capacity). What it still leaves open is response shape — whether results are grouped per marketplace or per section, and whether sections without maps are omitted.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'url' parameter with its own description ('One marketplace event page URL'). The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on URL format variations or what happens if the URL is not an event page — so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the concrete resource set: per-section seat maps as SVG URLs, cheapest all-in price per section, and venue seat capacity for an event. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_listings and compare_prices by its map/geometry focus, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent infers it is for when seat-map visuals or per-section pricing are needed. No when-not-to-use condition and no pointer to compare_prices or get_listings as alternatives for pricing-only questions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral trait not in annotations — 'Never billed' — but the phrase is cryptic (does it mean accessing this list is free, or that these marketplaces never incur capture charges?). It says nothing about return format or stability of the list.

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 short, front-loaded fragments with no filler. The trailing 'Never billed.' is terse to the point of ambiguity, which slightly undercuts clarity, but nothing is wasted.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing what comes back, and it does so only loosely ('marketplaces ... and the hosts that route to each'). The ambiguous pricing remark leaves an agent unsure what 'billed' refers to. Adequate but with clear gaps for a reference-data tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; the description need not explain any inputs and correctly does not.

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 the resource clearly: marketplaces and the hosts that route to each, with the qualifier that these are the ones Tickets.dev can capture. That is a specific and understandable scope. No sibling (find_events, get_listings, compare_prices, get_seat_map) is similar enough to need an explicit distinction, though naming it as a discovery/reference lookup would sharpen it.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent is expected to infer that this is a static reference lookup to run when it needs the supported marketplace/host universe. There is no explicit 'use when' statement, no mention of when not to call it, and no routing to alternates (though no real alternate exists for this resource).

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