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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it flags the endpoint as BETA with a potentially changing response shape, and discloses that output is trimmed by default with raw=true for the full payload. It omits auth/permission requirements, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the input provenance, then the stability and output-shape caveats. No filler.

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, two-identifier tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, input sourcing, output shape options, and a stability warning. The one gap is not characterizing what the trimmed counts actually report, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining where event_date_id comes from (humanitix_list_event_dates) and contrasting trimmed vs. raw output. It stops short of describing what the trimmed counts contain.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get check-in totals for a Humanitix event and event date') and scopes it to two identifiers. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling list/get tools, none of which report check-in totals.

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?

Gives clear context and, notably, routes the agent to humanitix_list_event_dates for obtaining event_date_id. It doesn't state exclusions (e.g., when to use sales_summary instead), but the retrieval condition for its required input is explicit.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the default return shape (trimmed event, raw=true for full payload), but says nothing about error behavior for an unknown event_id, authentication/account scoping, or rate limits.

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 tight sentences with the lookup key and the default-vs-raw behavior front-loaded; nothing is wasted and there is no filler.

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 3-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not characterize what the trimmed payload omits versus raw, nor failure cases, leaving some gaps an agent would want.

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 event_id, raw, and override_location are all already documented. The description's mention of raw=true mirrors the schema's own default:false and description, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it.

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?

States a specific verb (fetch) and resource (a single Humanitix event) qualified by the lookup key (event identifier), which cleanly separates it from the list-style siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming humanitix_list_events as the alternative for multi-event retrieval.

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: the agent must infer that this tool is for resolving a known event_id to full details while list tools cover discovery. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to any sibling.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully states the default return shape ('trimmed order by default') and the raw override, which is genuine behavioral context. It does not state read-only safety, auth requirements, error behavior for a missing order, or anything about the override_location side effect.

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 tightly written sentences with zero waste; the core operation is front-loaded and the default/override behavior follows immediately.

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 single-fetch tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description conveys the key variable in the response (trimmed vs raw full payload), which is exactly what an agent needs to choose the right call. It is only slightly short of complete, leaving auth and error handling unaddressed.

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 all four parameters including raw, event_id, order_id, and override_location are already documented in the schema. The description restates the raw flag's trimmed-vs-full behavior but adds no format, constraint, or default detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('a single order'), scoped by event and order identifiers. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling humanitix_list_orders by emphasizing 'single', but never names an alternative 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 implied by 'single order' versus the list sibling, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of prerequisites such as required permissions or when to prefer the list endpoint.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the dual return mode (trimmed summary by default vs raw full payload), which is real behavioral context, but says nothing about permissions, error behavior when ids are invalid, or 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?

Two tight sentences: identification semantics first, return-mode behavior second. Zero filler and everything is front-loaded.

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 single-record fetch with a fully documented schema, the description covers identification and the trimmed-vs-raw payload distinction, which is the main ambiguity. Without an output schema it could say a bit more about what the trimmed payload contains, but nothing essential for calling it correctly is missing.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema, including the raw flag and override_location. The description only restates the raw=true behavior and adds no semantics beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('a single ticket') qualified by the two required identifiers, which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling humanitix_list_tickets. It never names or contrasts with a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 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?

Usage is only implied – you call it when you already have an event and ticket id. There are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives (e.g. 'use list_tickets to discover ids first'), so the agent must infer the routing.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape ('projection of each date with its id, name, and start/end times') and read-only framing via 'List', but says nothing about pagination, permissions, account-location scoping, or error behavior for an unknown event_id.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and object, with the dependency note and return summary following. No filler or redundancy.

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 usefully specifies the returned projection so the agent knows what fields to expect. It is adequate for a simple three-parameter list tool, though it omits pagination and empty-result behavior.

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 all three parameters (including raw and override_location) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond implying the default projection, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (List) plus resource (event dates/sessions) scoped to a Humanitix event, and the parenthetical clarifies the domain term 'sessions'. An agent can distinguish this from humanitix_list_events and humanitix_get_event immediately.

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?

States why the tool matters: event dates are 'required identifiers for orders, tickets, and check-in tools,' which implicitly routes the agent here before calling order/ticket/check-in tools. It does not, however, explicitly say when to use this over humanitix_get_event or what to do if no dates exist.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that results are trimmed by default, that raw=true returns the full payload, that results are paginated and capped at max_items (default 500), and that the tool is scoped to the configured API key. It omits rate limits, error behavior, and auth failure modes, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose then defaults then filters, and each sentence carries information. There is mild redundancy with the schema descriptions (raw, since, max_items, in_future_only all restated), which keeps it from a 5.

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?

No output schema and no annotations exist, so the description must carry the return-shape burden, which it does by explaining trimmed summaries vs. raw payload and the pagination cap. Combined with 100% schema coverage, an agent has enough to invoke correctly; only error/edge behavior is missing.

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 every parameter (raw, since, max_items, page_size, in_future_only, override_location) is already documented in the schema; the baseline is 3. The description restates raw, max_items, in_future_only, and since with no syntax or behavior beyond the schema, and never mentions page_size or override_location at all.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List Humanitix events') and scopes it to 'accessible to the configured API key', which distinguishes it from humanitix_get_event (singular fetch). It does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from siblings like humanitix_list_event_dates, but 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 gives conditional guidance for parameters ('Use in_future_only=true to retrieve only future events, or provide an ISO 8601 datetime via since'), which implies when each filter applies. However, it never says when to use this tool versus humanitix_get_event or humanitix_list_event_dates, nor any prerequisites beyond the implicit API key.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses a genuinely useful trait — trimmed orders by default vs full payloads with raw=true — but omits auth/permission requirements, rate limits, and pagination/truncation behavior (max_items defaults to 500), leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope, with no filler. The middle clause ('The event_id identifies the event') is mildly redundant with the opening sentence but not harmful.

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 7-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, required-ID provenance, and the trimmed/raw return distinction, but never addresses pagination semantics, the 'since' filter, or the country-code override. Adequate but with clear gaps 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, and the description adds value by explaining the relationship between the two required IDs and the origin of event_date_id. It also reinforces the raw toggle, though it adds nothing about since, max_items, page_size, or override_location.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List orders') with a precise scope ('for a specific Humanitix event and event date'), so the agent immediately knows what is returned. It does not, however, contrast itself with siblings like humanitix_get_order or humanitix_list_tickets, so differentiation from the rest of the family is left implicit.

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?

Provides a real prerequisite: event_date_id 'can be obtained from humanitix_list_event_dates', which tells the agent how to sequence calls. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or conditional routing to alternatives such as humanitix_get_order for a single order.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: results are trimmed by default and raw=true returns full payloads. It does not mention read-only nature, auth requirements, or rate limits, which is a minor gap for a low-risk list operation.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope, then the ID sourcing, then the optional filter and the raw/trimmed tradeoff. Every sentence adds information and none is redundant.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what is listed, how to obtain the required IDs, optional filtering, and the trimmed/raw return distinction. It could say more about pagination interaction (max_items vs page_size), but is adequate for calling the tool correctly.

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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value beyond it by explaining the event_id/event_date_id relationship, where event_date_id comes from, and the trimmed-vs-raw semantics of the raw flag. It leaves since, max_items, page_size, and override_location to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List tickets for a specific Humanitix event and event date') and narrows the scope to a single event/date pair, which cleanly separates it from sibling list/get tools like humanitix_list_orders or humanitix_get_ticket. An agent can identify the operation without consulting any schema.

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?

Gives clear context: event_id identifies the event, event_date_id identifies the date and is sourced from humanitix_list_event_dates, and status is an optional filter. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over humanitix_get_ticket or humanitix_list_orders, so no explicit exclusions are offered.

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

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses conditional output behavior ('gross revenue (when price data is available)', 'capacity utilisation (when a trustworthy capacity value is present)'), which is genuine added value, but it never states that the operation is read-only, nor anything about rate limits, cost, or the shape/size of the result.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler, front-loading the core purpose before the output contents and the parameter dependency note. Nothing is padded, though the middle sentence bundles several caveats.

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 and no annotations, the description does a reasonable job of summarizing the return contents and flagging conditional availability of revenue/capacity figures. The remaining gap is behavioral (read-only nature, execution limits) rather than structural, given the schema fully documents all five parameters.

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 restates the roles of event_id and event_date_id and adds where to obtain the latter, but says nothing about raw, max_items, or override_location beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Build a sales summary for a Humanitix event and event date by aggregating tickets') and enumerates what the summary contains. It is clearly distinguishable from retrieval siblings like humanitix_get_event or humanitix_list_tickets, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Provides concrete routing help by naming the sibling tool that supplies the required event_date_id ('can be obtained from humanitix_list_event_dates'), and the required event_id/event_date_id pair establishes the usage context. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this tool or any exclusions.

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