biletix_get_event

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the read-only shape of the response (name, dates, status, venue with geo, TRY price, availability, image). It does not state what happens with a malformed or stale event_url, whether any authentication is required, or rate limits — gaps that matter for a web-scraping retrieval tool.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one short sentence, followed by parameter guidance and the return fields with no filler. The long parenthetical with the example URL makes the sentence slightly tangled, but every element 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?

For a one-parameter lookup, the definition covers purpose, input format and provenance of the input. The return-field list is largely redundant given an output schema exists, and error behavior for invalid URLs is unaddressed, but nothing essential to calling the tool correctly is missing.

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% and the single parameter is undocumented in the schema, but the description fully compensates: it states the parameter is the event's biletix.com URL, quotes a complete example format, and specifies where to obtain it. An agent can construct a valid call from the description alone.

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 opening sentence "Full detail for one event" names a single resource and implies a retrieval verb, so an agent can tell this apart from the sibling list/search/trending tools. What it lacks is an explicit contrast clause naming those siblings as the aggregators that feed this detail call.

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 parameter note "as returned by the trending/search tools" establishes the intended workflow: obtain an event_url from a discovery tool, then call this one for detail. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g. don't call this for browsing), but the context is clear enough to route correctly.

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