eb_org_ticket_groups

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds semantic value by explaining ticket groups as 'ticket classes bundled across events', which goes beyond the annotation. It does not describe return format or pagination details, but the continuation parameter in the schema helps cover that.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with a helpful parenthetical. Every word earns its place, and it is immediately clear 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 list tool with 2 parameters and a read-only annotation, the description is sufficient. It explains the core resource and scope, and the schema covers pagination. It does not describe return value structure, but no output schema exists, and the description implies a list of ticket groups. Missing some behavioral details (e.g., whether it returns all groups or requires additional filters), but overall adequate.

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% with both parameters documented (org_id and continuation). The description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which is adequate but not exceptional. 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 uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'an organization's ticket groups', with a clarifying parenthetical explaining what ticket groups are. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like eb_ticket_classes and eb_org_events.

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 clearly implies usage for org-level ticket groups via 'organization's ticket groups', but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It provides enough context to infer when to use, but lacks explicit 'use instead of' guidance.

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