seatgeek_search_performers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention pagination, sorting, authentication requirements, or the structure of results (e.g., list of performers with IDs). This leaves the agent with insufficient information to predict tool behavior.

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 tool has a single concise sentence, which is appropriately short, but it is too minimal to convey necessary detail. It earns its place but does not add substantial information.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is highly incomplete. It does not set expectations for return format, performance limits, or error handling, which are critical for an unannotated tool.

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 should compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention 'q' (presumably a search query) or 'api_key', leaving the agent to infer their purpose. The description adds no semantic value beyond 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Search for performers') and the resource ('on SeatGeek'). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like seatgeek_search_events and seatgeek_search_venues by specifying 'performers'.

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 like seatgeek_get_performer for retrieving a specific performer by ID. The description lacks any contextual cues about typical use cases or scenarios.

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