bms_get_events

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 discloses it is a retrieval operation ('Retrieves active live events') and lists the returned data fields. However, it does not explicitly state whether it is read-only, whether any authentication is required, or whether there are rate limits or pagination—though these are not critical for a simple listing tool. It gives no details on side effects, which is safe to assume none exist, but the lack of explicit statement keeps it at a modest score.

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 concise: a one-sentence summary plus an Args block that clearly documents both parameters with examples. It front-loads the purpose and avoids fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return value details are not required. The description covers both parameters and describes the type of data returned (venue names, dates, category tags). It does not mention pagination or limits, but for a city-scoped event listing, that's likely acceptable. Overall it's adequate and leaves few open questions.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters, and it does. It gives example city slugs ('mumbai', 'bengaluru', 'delhi') and enumerates allowed category values ('events', 'comedy-shows', 'music-shows', 'sports'), adding context that the schema otherwise lacks. The defaults are in the schema, so the description doesn't need to repeat them. This is a strong compensatory effort.

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 'Get Live Events & Shows in a City' and enumerates the types of events (comedy, music, sports, etc.), distinguishing it from siblings like bms_get_movies and bms_get_showtimes. It names the target resource (live events) and the verb (get), making its purpose 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 implies when to use it (when a city's live events are needed) and the parameter guidance narrows the use case, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. The sibling list makes it clear that other tools handle movies and showtimes, but this isn't stated in the description itself.

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