List upcoming performances

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it specifies the scope ('across all active events'), the ordering ('soonest first'), and that it returns the event name. It also hints at a returned ID for subsequent calls. This adds useful behavior details without contradicting the annotations. The typo 'dat- id' slightly detracts but does not affect transparency.

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 two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence provides a practical usage hint. It is concise and informative, though the typo 'dat- id' slightly reduces polish. Overall, it is appropriately sized and structured, with no redundant information.

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 read-only listing tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it indicates the output includes performance dates and event names, the ordering, and hints at an ID for further actions. It does not explicitly list all return fields or describe edge cases (e.g., empty results, pagination), but given the tool's simplicity and the annotations covering safety, the description is reasonably complete. The mention of using the returned ID with get_performance_bookings is a valuable contextual detail.

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 provides descriptions for days_ahead ('How many days ahead to look') and include_cancelled ('Include cancelled performances'), but limit lacks a description. The tool description adds minimal parameter meaning: 'in the next N days' implies the days_ahead parameter, and the mention of 'active events' indirectly relates to include_cancelled (since cancelled performances might be excluded by default). However, it does not explain the limit parameter or clarify how include_cancelled behaves beyond the schema. Given moderate schema coverage (67%), the description adds some value but does not fully compensate for the missing limit description.

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 lists performance dates across all active events within a given number of days, sorted soonest first, and includes the event name. It specifies the resource (performances) and the scope (across all active events), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_events (which lists events) and get_performance_bookings (which targets a specific performance). The verb 'list' is concrete and the purpose is 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?

The description provides a clear follow-up action: 'Use the returned dat- id with get_performance_bookings.' This hints at the typical workflow, implying the tool is a precursor to fetching bookings for a specific performance. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like list_events or when not to use it. Still, the usage context is reasonably conveyed through the explicit follow-up hint.

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