biletix_trending

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the burden and does disclose useful operational detail: the 1..50 limit bound, the meaning of each section including that 'all' covers the entire homepage set, and that group/tour cards are flagged via is_group. It omits any statement about read-only status, rate limits, or pagination, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by section semantics, the limit bound, and the return fields, with no filler sentences. The dense parenthetical style packs a lot of information into a short space despite slightly awkward line wrapping.

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 two-parameter, zero-required listing tool with an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what it lists, how sections differ, and the limit range. The return-field enumeration is redundant given the output schema but harmless, and the absence of any read-only or rate-limit note is the only real omission.

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 must compensate, and it largely does: it defines all three accepted 'section' values with their Turkish labels and English meanings, and gives the 'limit 1..50' range that is absent from the schema. It does not say what the default limit is or whether limit interacts with the 'all' section, leaving a minor gap.

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 states a specific resource and scope ('Trending/featured events on biletix.com') and enumerates the three sections it can return. It implicitly distinguishes itself from search/category/venue siblings by being limited to homepage-featured events, but never names an alternative to sharpen that boundary.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'browse' is glossed as featured events, 'starting_soon' as events within 24h, and 'all' as every homepage featured event, which lets an agent infer when each applies. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over biletix_search_events or biletix_list_by_category, and no exclusions.

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