tm_get_event

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't mention the api_key requirement, error behavior for unknown IDs, or rate limits on the live Ticketmaster API.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no padding. Its brevity is appropriate, though it leaves little room for the missing guidance, which is penalized elsewhere.

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, 0% parameter documentation, and no annotations explaining return values, the description must carry the load and doesn't. It says nothing about what fields come back (dates, venues, price ranges) or how to supply the API key.

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 schema gives only names and types. The description implies 'id' identifies an event but does not say where that ID comes from (presumably a search result), and the required-looking 'api_key' parameter is never mentioned 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 clear verb+resource combination ('Get details for a specific Ticketmaster event') and the tm_ prefix makes it plainly distinct from tm_search_events and tm_search_venues. It stops short of naming siblings explicitly, but the single-resource lookup intent 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 word 'specific' hints that this is an ID lookup rather than a search, but there is no statement of when to use it versus tm_search_events or what to do when you lack an ID. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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