Organisation context

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is low. The description adds real disclosure beyond them: payment methods are returned 'without any provider keys' (a security-relevant guarantee) and the delivery-method endpoint is API-scoped to a transaction. Redaction behavior is present but lives in the schema, not the description.

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 front-loaded sentence opens with the framing ('What the channel is set up with') and then enumerates the resources in parallel, with endpoint references inline. It is dense and slightly run-on, but every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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 full burden of explaining return values, and it does so by listing each returned resource category plus the condition that gates it. All three optional parameters are accounted for, so an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the 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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including the redaction semantics of include_contact_details. The description's notes on performance_id and transaction_id largely restate the schema, adding only the scoping rationale. 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 names a specific resource bundle — organisation currency, venue plans, payment methods, seat types, delivery methods — with the backing endpoints, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_transaction or get_performance_seating, but the config-level scope is distinctive enough to separate it.

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?

Conditional usage is stated directly: seat types can be scoped to a single performance, and delivery methods are returned only when a transaction_id is supplied. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative, but the parameter-driven conditions make the invocation context clear.

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