eb_resolve_place

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by revealing the accepted input formats (plain text or browse slug), the city-only rejection, and the return structure including 'shelves' (curated browse shelves). It also notes that shelves are 'harvested free from the same fetch,' which is a useful detail. The annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) are not contradicted and cover the read-only aspect, so the description supplements them well.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the core function, giving input examples and a constraint, and summarizing the return value. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no filler. Every sentence 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: input formats, rejection conditions, return fields, and its role in a broader workflow (eb_search_events). There are no obvious gaps; the description is self-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 describes the 'location' parameter with 100% coverage, but the description adds meaningful semantics: it provides examples of valid formats, explains that a plain city is invalid, and clarifies that the value can be a browse slug. This goes beyond the schema's generic description and helps the agent construct valid inputs.

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: 'Resolve a location to Eventbrite's internal place id for eb_search_events.' It specifies the verb (resolve), the resource (location to place id), and the intended downstream use (for eb_search_events), distinguishing it from sibling tools. Concrete examples ('Charlotte, NC', 'Berlin, Germany', 'nc--charlotte') further clarify the input types.

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 explicitly indicates when to use the tool (as a prerequisite for eb_search_events) and provides a clear rejection condition ('A city on its own is rejected — include the state or country'). This gives the agent guidance on both use and limitations, effectively covering the 'when' and 'when-not' criteria.

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