List tickets for an event

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.