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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld hints, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds useful auth context ('no Etix account required') and clarifies the output includes normalized city/state, going beyond what annotations provide. It does not mention failure modes or rate limits, but these are less critical for a simple read-only geocode lookup.

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, purposeful sentences: the first states what the tool does, the second explains its intended use, and the third covers access traits. No filler or redundancy, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 adequately covers return values (coordinates and normalized city/state) at a practical level. The main gap is the lack of a concrete response shape or error behavior, but for a simple geocoding lookup the description gives an agent enough to call it correctly and understand its 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%, with both 'query' and 'country' already documented with examples and defaults. The description essentially restates the same parameter semantics (city/postal code, coordinates) without adding new meaning, so a baseline score 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 states a specific verb ('Resolve'), a precise resource ('a city name or postal code'), and a concrete output (coordinates plus normalized city/state). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like etix_search and etix_get_event by framing this as a geolocation building block rather than an event or venue lookup.

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 is useful as a building block for location-based event browsing. It does not name explicit alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the 'building block' framing tells an agent when this tool fits in a multi-step workflow.

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, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds value by stating 'Read-only, no Etix account required,' which is not covered by annotations, and by detailing the exact data returned. With no output schema, this description fully carries the burden of telling the agent what to expect.

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, information-dense sentence that leads with the core purpose and then enumerates the return payload. Every clause contributes to agent understanding; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it specifies the input, the source of that input, the full set of returned data, and the access prerequisites (no account). An agent has everything needed to call it 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 coverage is 100%, and the event_id parameter is fully described in the schema (type, example, and source 'From etix_search'). The description reinforces this by calling it 'numeric event_id' and reiterating the source, but adds no new information beyond what the schema already provides. 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 ('Fetch') and resource ('single Etix event/performance') by its numeric event_id, and enumerates the returned fields (name, date/time, venue, organizer, price range, offer levels). This clearly differentiates it from sibling etix_search (search) and etix_get_venue (venue lookup).

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to get the event_id from etix_search, establishing a clear workflow dependency. It also notes that it is read-only and requires no Etix account, which guides when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for other use cases, leaving some inference.

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 readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is established. The description adds useful context beyond those flags: no Etix account required, the expected response contents, and that only upcoming events are returned. It does not mention rate limits or freshness, but openWorldHint and the simple read-only nature make those less critical.

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: the first establishes the operation and output, the second gives the source and follow-up workflow, and the third states auth and safety. Every sentence adds value and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 one required parameter, no output schema, annotations covering read-only/idempotent behavior, and a description that specifies the return payload and workflow, the definition fully equips an agent to call this tool correctly. No critical information is missing.

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 schema already documents venue_id, its integer type, range, example, and source (etix_search). The description reinforces 'numeric' and the source, but adds no meaningful parameter meaning 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a single Etix venue by its numeric venue_id.' It enumerates the returned data (name, organizer, address, upcoming events with event_id, name, start time, ticket URL) and explicitly distinguishes its role from etix_search and etix_get_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 gives an explicit workflow: obtain venue_id from etix_search, use this tool to fetch the venue and its events, then follow up with etix_get_event for any listed event. This clearly communicates when to use this tool and how it relates to its siblings.

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, openWorldHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds meaningful context on top: it specifies the exact probe (public /robots.txt), states 'no auth required', and discloses the diagnostic surface (bridge role, port, version, extension link state, elapsed time, plain-English hint). It even distinguishes failure classes the agent can map to.

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 core action is front-loaded ('Round-trips a small public www.etix.com URL'), and the trailing clause is a dense but purposeful enumeration of return fields and failure hints. It is somewhat list-heavy in a single run-on sentence, but every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden by naming the diagnostic fields and the plain-English hints, and it covers auth (none) and safety (read-only). Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret this healthcheck is missing.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the schema coverage is 100% over an empty object. Baseline 4 applies since no parameter semantics exist to document.

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+resource ('Round-trips ... through ContextMint Bridge ... returns diagnostics') and enumerates exactly what comes back. It is unmistakably distinct from the data-retrieval siblings (etix_search, etix_get_event, etix_get_venue, etix_find_location), which fetch Etix content rather than probing the bridge.

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 an explicit trigger condition: 'Call this when a real tool fails and you want to know which hop broke.' Combined with the enumerated failure-mode hints, an agent knows both when to reach for it and what question it answers, rather than guessing among sibling tools.

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, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, and the description aligns with these. It adds valuable context beyond annotations by revealing the underlying endpoint (public suggest) and the non-exhaustive nature of results, giving the agent an accurate expectation of 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 two sentences, with the core purpose and output first, followed by follow-up guidance and a behavioral note. Every clause earns its place; there is no redundant or filler text.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of annotations, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what it returns (ids and URLs), how to proceed for full details, and limitations. No output schema is provided, but the description clarifies the return content sufficiently.

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 single parameter 'keywords' is fully described in the schema with a clear example, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add parameter-specific details, but it doesn't need to; the schema already conveys the meaning. 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: search by keyword and return matching events, venues, and performers with IDs and canonical URLs. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning follow-up calls to etix_get_event and etix_get_venue, making its role in the workflow unmistakable.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings: it is the initial search step, and full details are obtained via follow-up tools. It also notes the limitation that it returns only a few top matches, not an exhaustive list, and states it is read-only with no account required, all of which inform appropriate usage.

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