eb_event_questions

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a read-only operation. The description adds behavioral context by explaining that setting canned=true returns Eventbrite's standard question bank instead of the event's custom ones, which clarifies the two modes of operation. It does not disclose additional details like pagination or error behavior, but given the annotation coverage, this is adequate.

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 only two sentences, with the main action in the first sentence and parameter guidance in the second. It front-loads the core purpose and includes only essential information, achieving high conciseness.

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?

The tool has only two parameters and no output schema, so the description covers the core functionality sufficiently. It explains both the primary action and the optional parameter's effect. While it doesn't mention return format or pagination, the simplicity of the tool makes this acceptable.

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 input schema provides descriptions for both parameters, covering 100% of them. The description enhances this by explaining the behavioral difference between the default custom questions and the canned=true standard bank. This adds domain-specific meaning beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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 'List the registration questions an event asks its buyers,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing specifically on registration questions, which no other sibling tool covers. The mention of the canned parameter further clarifies the tool's scope.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to retrieve an event's registration questions. It explains the distinction between custom and canned question banks via the parameter, but does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternative sibling tools. Thus, the usage is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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