bandsintown_recommended

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read/write nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or return behavior. The description fails to add value beyond the basic purpose.

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 a single concise sentence, which is appropriately short, but it sacrifices critical information. While it is not verbose, it does not fully earn its place as it fails to provide necessary details for effective tool usage.

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?

Given the tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how parameters affect results, or any side effects. The agent lacks sufficient information to use 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (artist, location, app_id). It does not clarify what 'location' or 'app_id' do, leaving the agent unable to infer their meaning or correct usage.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'recommended events for an artist on Bandsintown.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'bandsintown_artist' and 'bandsintown_events' by specifying 'recommended' events, but does not explicitly differentiate why one would choose this tool over others.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'bandsintown_events' or 'bandsintown_artist.' There are no hints about prerequisites, limitations, or context where this tool is preferred.

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