humanitix_list_tickets

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.