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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and open-world, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: no authentication is needed and the emailed link acts as the credential. It also clarifies that the tool can parse links from multiple venue types, which goes beyond the structured fields.

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 tightly packed sentences deliver the core behavior, output scope, venue coverage, and authentication requirement with no wasted words. The most important action is front-loaded, and every clause adds useful information.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields. It also covers authentication, venue scope, and the input source. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the result.

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 baseline of 3 applies; all three parameters (url, view, include_terms) are already well documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but it does not need to because the schema covers the semantics fully.

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 'Read' and names the exact resource: an accesso ticket link and its order-level contents. Listing 'every admission' with product, participant, date, time, barcode text, and merchant instructions clearly distinguishes it from a per-ticket sibling such as accesso_get_ticket.

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 gives clear usage context: it works for any accesso-powered venue and requires no login because the emailed link itself is the credential. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the intended scenario is unambiguous.

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?

With readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the response includes merchant instructions and optionally terms. This goes beyond what the annotations alone state and helps set expectations.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately explains the identifying mechanism, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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 read-only tool with one required parameter and full schema coverage, the description plus annotations are sufficient. It explains what is returned, how to identify the ticket, and that terms are opt-in, so an agent has enough context to call the tool correctly.

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 documented in the schema. The description restates that the index comes from accesso_get_order, which is already in the schema's index description, adding no new semantic information.

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 identifies the tool as returning a single admission from an accesso order in full detail, distinguishing it from the order-level tool by requiring the index from accesso_get_order. The resource and purpose are specific and unambiguous.

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 gives clear context: use this tool to get one admission from an order, identified by index obtained from accesso_get_order. It implicitly establishes a workflow but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over sibling tools like accesso_get_wallet_passes or accesso_resolve_link.

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 and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful caveat that not every merchant enables passes, but does not describe the output format or behavior when passes are unavailable. This is acceptable but not richly transparent.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is first, followed by a practical usage note and a caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only tool with two optional parameters, the description covers the main purpose, the output type (save links), and a key limitation. It does not detail the exact response structure, but the absence of an output schema makes the description reasonably 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 100%, so the description does not need to re-explain parameters. It adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides, which matches the baseline expectation.

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 identifies the tool's output: Google Wallet save links for tickets on an accesso order. It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like accesso_get_order and accesso_save_barcodes, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns'.

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 gives clear usage context: these links are meant to be opened on a phone to add a ticket to Google Wallet. It also notes that not every merchant enables passes, warning about a potential limitation. It does not name alternative tools explicitly, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand when it applies.

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 indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds detail about checking connectivity and default link configuration, but does not disclose output format, error behavior, or what happens when ACCESSO_TICKET_URL is unset. No contradiction exists.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the tool's purpose without redundancy or fluff. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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 diagnostic tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It could clarify the return value or the behavior when no URL and no default link are present, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 only parameter, url, is fully described in the schema, including its source and optionality. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and names the exact resources: server reachability to accesso and default ticket link configuration. It clearly distinguishes this healthcheck tool from the data-access and mutation sibling tools.

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 a diagnostic use case but does not explicitly state when to call this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it. The healthcheck name and sibling context make the intended use reasonably clear, but the guidance is not explicit.

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 behavior, and the description adds that the tool unwraps the tracking URL into the wrapped accesso URL. This transformation detail goes beyond the annotations and clarifies what the operation does. It does not discuss failure modes, but for a simple one-parameter read-only resolver this is sufficient.

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 carry the full operational and usage context without any filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the usage condition is stated immediately after, making the description efficient and well-structured.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context: what the input is, when to use it, and what the result will be (the direct accesso ticket URL). Minor missing details like invalid-link handling are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema's parameter description is already informative, and the tool description adds further meaning by specifying that the URL must be a 'click-tracking link' and should not already be an accessoticketing.com address. This extra constraint helps the agent pass a valid input.

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 operation—'resolve' a click-tracking link into the 'direct accesso ticket URL'—with a clear resource and result. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by specifying the input type, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 gives an explicit usage condition: 'Use when a link is not already an accessoticketing.com address.' This tells the agent when the tool applies and, conversely, when it should not be used, providing a clear decision rule.

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 declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description goes well beyond that by disclosing the actual side effect (writes PNGs to the server filesystem), the return shape (paths), and a non-obvious environmental caveat — that on a remote server the written filesystem is not the user's, so inline is effectively required. That caveat is genuine behavioral context not derivable from annotations or schema.

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 tight sentences: the core action and output first, then the inline alternative with its condition of use. No filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (remote filesystem caveat) is bundled with the parameter it affects.

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 small write tool with annotations covering safety, no output schema, and zero required parameters, the description covers the action, the side effect, the return style, and the mode tradeoff. Minor gaps remain: where files are written, whether existing files are overwritten, and how invalid indexes are handled.

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 url/inline/indexes are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces inline's behavior and the remote-server implication, but adds no syntax or format detail for url or indexes. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 (save) and resource (scannable barcode images from an accesso order), with the output form (PNGs + paths) named up front. This is clearly distinguishable from the read-oriented siblings get_ticket/get_order/get_wallet_passes, since it produces files rather than returning ticket 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?

Gives explicit mode-selection guidance: default writes PNG files and returns paths, while inline returns images directly and is called out as the only useful mode when the server runs remotely. It doesn't route the agent against sibling tools (e.g. when to fetch barcodes vs. get the order), but the in-tool when-to-use guidance is clear.

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