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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful piece of context – to use the returned download URL rather than the one it forwards to – but says nothing about error or permission 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?

A single, tightly packed sentence with no filler; the resource and its fields are front-loaded. The trailing parenthetical about the download URL is a slight digression but 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (title, file name, type, size, URL), which compensates for the absence of a return contract. Only the when-to-use guidance is missing for what is otherwise a simple, well-annotated read tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both attachment_id and include_contact_details documented in the schema (including the redaction semantics). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource (one file attached to an event) and enumerates the fields it returns, so the agent knows exactly what it fetches. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_event or get_ticket, but the resource is specific enough to be unambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer from the bare purpose that this is a single-attachment fetch by ID.

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

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description's job is to add payload context — and it does, spelling out that ticket types include issued/taken/spaces-left/cost and that related entities are side-loaded rather than requiring extra calls. It does not mention the redaction behavior of include_contact_details, a minor gap.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the resource and then enumerates the payload. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey the return shape, and it does so adequately: location, per-ticket-type availability counters and cost, leaders, attachments, all side-loaded. It stops short of noting the contact-detail unredaction toggle, which is the one behavior an agent might need to know before calling.

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 only 2 parameters, so the schema already documents both event_id and include_contact_details with its redaction semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond implying leaders/tickets are returned, making the baseline 3 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 names a specific resource (one event) and enumerates the side-loaded payload (location, ticket types with availability, leaders, attachments), which clearly separates it from the list_* siblings. It lacks an explicit verb but the scope ('one event') makes the single-record intent unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'side-loaded in a single call' hints that this is preferable to fanning out across get_location/get_ticket/list_leaders, but the description never states when to use it versus those siblings or any exclusions. An agent can infer retrieval-by-id usage but gets no explicit routing guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only that a map image URL and coordinates come back, which is modest output context rather than behavioral disclosure. It does not mention the contact-detail redaction default, though that is documented in the schema.

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?

A single compact sentence-fragment with no filler and the return payload front-loaded. It is terse to the point of omitting a verb, which slightly weakens readability, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With rich annotations, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description's main remaining job is to convey what comes back, which it does by listing the four payload components. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing, though it could say more about single-vs-list selection.

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 description coverage is 100% – both location_id (slug pattern) and include_contact_details (redaction toggle) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource ('One venue') and enumerates exactly what the call returns (address, additional info, coordinates, map image URL). The verb is only implied by the tool name, and it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling list_locations, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no stated when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The phrase 'One venue' hints that this is the single-item counterpart to list_locations, but that routing decision is left entirely to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the payload (availability, cost, and the event(s) booked, with course-wide events for course tickets), but says nothing about redaction behavior, errors for unknown IDs, or pagination.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, though the missing subject/verb makes it read as a fragment rather than a properly front-loaded statement of 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does a partial job by naming the returned fields. However, for a read tool whose annotations are already informative, the absence of usage context and any mention of the contact-detail toggle leaves it only minimally 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 description coverage is 100%, with both ticket_id and include_contact_details documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., ID format constraints or the effect of toggling contact details) beyond what the schema already states.

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 conveys the resource (a ticket type) and enumerates what it returns (availability, cost, booked events), but it is a verbless fragment that never states the action ('retrieve/fetch by ID'). It also does not differentiate from siblings like get_event, get_location, or list_event_tickets.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_event_tickets or get_event. The only hint about usage is the implicit assumption that a ticket_id is already known, which the agent must infer.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds data-model context (what a class pass is, cost unit convention) but says nothing about the redaction behavior of include_contact_details or any auth/rate-limit traits beyond what annotations give.

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?

Two dense sentences that front-load the data-model definition before the filter list. There is some redundancy with the schema on filter names and the cost unit, but no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by naming the returned fields (usage allowance, type, number available, day restriction). Combined with the filter coverage and the safety annotations, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only the redaction semantics of include_contact_details are left to the schema.

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 description coverage is 88%, so the schema already documents every filter including the comparison-operator shape and the cost unit. The description largely restates these (usage type, cost, usage_allowance, use_restricted_for_days) and adds only one concrete example (filter[cost][gte]=2000), so 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?

States a specific resource (class passes) and defines it parenthetically as 'pre-purchased bundles of bookings', then enumerates the fields it returns (usage allowance, type, number available, day restriction). The verb is implied by the name rather than stated, and no sibling is named, but the resource is unambiguous and clearly distinct from get_event/list_events siblings.

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 lists the available filters, which implies how to narrow a search, but never states when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternative exists. Usage is inferred from the filter catalogue rather than spelled out.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds substantial extra behavior: the default date window when `from` is omitted, AND-combination of filters, comma-separated multi-values within one filter, and automatic pagination until no next page or max_results. These are traits an agent could not infer from the structured fields.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose and scope first, then defaults and filter-combination rules, then pagination. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information (default date window) is front-loaded.

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?

With 11 optional parameters, no output schema, and a fully documented schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it explains filtering semantics, defaults, and pagination. It could say more about ordering or what pagination metadata accompanies the events, but nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine cross-parameter semantics the schema does not convey: every filter is AND-ed together and multiple values inside a single filter are sent comma-separated. That is real meaning beyond per-parameter docs, though individual parameter formats are left to the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource and disambiguates the resource with synonyms ('classes, courses, workshops'), plus lists the returned fields (date, attendee limit and count, tags, location ID). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_class_passes or get_event, so it stops short of the top band.

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 gives operating context (default range is today onwards, filters combined with AND) but never states when to choose this tool over get_event or the other list_* siblings, nor any when-not conditions. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds data semantics ('null = no limit', 'taken = booked or reserved in checkout'), which is useful, but says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, pagination, or redaction behavior. Moderate added value against an already-covered safety profile.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the field inventory. No filler, though the run-on list of fields is slightly harder to parse than separate clauses.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly, enumerating the fields the caller receives and clarifying ambiguous ones (null=unlimited, reserved-in-checkout, group/course ticket). The remaining gaps are behavioral (max_results/pagination) rather than structural.

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 description coverage is 67%, the mid-band baseline. The description adds no parameter guidance at all: event_id is only implied by 'for one event', max_results is undocumented anywhere, and include_contact_details (a surprising redaction toggle) is explained only by the schema. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb+resource-scope: 'Every ticket type for one event with availability.' An agent can tell this lists ticket types rather than fetching a single ticket (get_ticket) or event-level data (get_event). It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. It never mentions events as a precondition in a routing sense (only implies it via the field list) and never contrasts itself with get_ticket or list_class_passes. The agent must infer fit from the purpose alone.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's job is to add context — and it does: it discloses that only 'published' profiles are returned and that email/phone are redacted unless include_contact_details is set. It omits any mention of pagination or result ordering, which the max_results parameter makes relevant.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the resource definition plus returned fields are front-loaded before the redaction caveat. Efficient, though the parenthetical definition is slightly dense.

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?

With no output schema, the field enumeration is necessary and present, and the redaction rule is disclosed. The remaining gap is max_results semantics (maximum 500, default 100, whether results are paginated), which an agent would want before calling.

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 50%: include_contact_details is already described in the schema, and the description's statement about it repeats that effect (with the added detail that bios are un-redacted). max_results is undocumented in both the schema and the description, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States the resource ('Leaders') and defines it parenthetically as published admin profiles, then enumerates the returned fields (name, job title, location, bio, website, social links). That is specific but stops short of an explicit verb such as 'list all'; it is clear largely because the title and no competing sibling tool exist for leaders.

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 never says when to call this tool, what context it applies to, or what alternatives exist. The only conditional information ('contact email and phone are only returned with include_contact_details') is a parameter effect, not usage guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the notable return contents (static map image URL, coordinates), but it omits the significant behavioral fact that contact details are redacted by default, which is only surfaced in the schema.

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?

Two compact sentences with the resource and its returned fields front-loaded, and the filtering note appended. No wasted text, though it is terse enough that some needed information is absent.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries return-value burden and does describe the principal fields a caller receives. It is largely sufficient, though it never notes the default redaction of email/phone, which an agent should know before relying on contact text.

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 description coverage is 75%, so most parameters are already documented. The description connects address_text and additional_info to their filtering role but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, and says nothing about max_results or the contact-detail redaction toggle.

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 names the resource (venues/locations) and enumerates the fields returned (address, directions, coordinates, static map image URL), so the agent knows what domain object it deals with. It never explicitly states the verb 'list all' and does not name the sibling get_location, leaving some differentiation work to the tool name.

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?

It states that filtering by address or additional-info text is optional, which is useful usage context. However, it never says when to prefer this over get_location for a single venue, nor gives any prerequisite or exclusion condition.

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