Get performance

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 scope about what the response contains (pricing per band/variant, capacity remaining) but says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, or the redaction behavior described 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 sentences, front-loaded with the substantive content (fields returned) before a short endpoint note. The trailing "Uses GET /performance/{performance_id}/." adds little for an agent but costs only one clause.

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 earns its keep by enumerating the key return fields. It is nearly complete for a simple read-by-id tool; the only real omissions are error/not-found behavior and any hint on the `codes` parameter.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema; notably it does not clarify the opaque `codes` parameter, which the schema itself admits is undocumented.

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?

"One performance with its pricing per price band and variant, capacity and capacity remaining, venue plan id" gives a specific verb+resource and previews the returned payload. The word "one" implicitly separates it from list_performances, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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: fetching a single performance by id when you already have the id. There is no statement of when to prefer get_performance over list_performances or get_performance_seating, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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