Секторы концертной площадки

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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, and the description reinforces that it is read-only and adds a concrete limitation: the MCP cannot book from this screen, only view availability. It also clarifies where seatId data can be found instead of this screen. No contradiction with the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds selection rules and read-only limitation in short sentences. Every part adds useful context, although the structure could be slightly tighter.

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 an output schema present, the return shape does not need to be repeated. The description clearly covers the domain boundaries, the read-only nature, and the fallback for seats. However, it does not explain how an agent should obtain or interpret event_id, slot_id, and object_id, which is a necessary step for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the meaning of the kind parameter, including the two valid kinds and their exclusions, but it gives no meaning or context for the three required parameters: event_id, slot_id, and object_id. The description is not enough to fully determine how those parameters should be supplied.

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 explains that this is a view over sectors with free seating (entry tickets, fan zones) and clarifies the kind values whose concert/theater domains have free seating, while cinema has numbered seats and exhibitions have no such screen. It does not use an explicit verb like “get” or “list”, but “смотреть наличие” conveys the read action clearly.

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 explicit selection conditions: use kind "концерт" or "театр", not cinemas and not exhibitions. It further states that booking from this MCP is not possible, so the tool should be used only to watch availability, and explicitly points to cinema_seats(kind=…) for the actual seats and their seatId.

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