eb_reference

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a safe read operation. The description adds that the tool returns lists of reference data and that IDs feed search filters, which is useful but not rich behavioral detail. It doesn't disclose return format, pagination, rate limits, or other behavioral traits, so with the annotation covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes concrete examples plus a downstream usage note. Every sentence carries informational weight with no redundancy or fluff.

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 low complexity (one enum parameter, no output schema needed, read-only annotation), the description is complete. It states what the tool returns, gives examples, and explains how the output relates to sibling tools, which is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 already fully documents the 'kind' parameter with an enum and description, so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond this by giving concrete examples of category IDs (103=Music, 101=Business) and explaining that these IDs feed eb_search_events filters, which enriches the parameter's meaning and helps the agent understand the returned values' usage.

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 purpose: 'List Eventbrite reference data' and enumerates specific resource types (categories, subcategories, formats, timezones, countries, regions). It also provides concrete examples (103=Music) and distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that returned IDs feed eb_search_events filters, making it clear this is a lookup/reference tool.

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 when to use this tool: when you need reference data such as category IDs for eb_search_events filters. It gives clear context by explicitly linking the output to a sibling tool's usage, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools for similar data, so it falls short of a 5.

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