Search Etix events, venues, and performers

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.