get_event_ticketing_eligibility

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing safety. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the return shape (eligibility boolean and reason when ineligible), which goes beyond the annotations. It does not cover error handling or permission requirements, but the annotations lower the bar.

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 two short sentences, with the main action front-loaded ('Check whether a Partiful event by ID is eligible for ticketing') and a concise follow-up on the return value. There is no redundancy or superfluous detail.

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?

The tool is simple, with an output schema, rich annotations, and full schema parameter coverage. The description adequately explains the tool's purpose and key output without needing to repeat schema details. Edge cases like event-not-found are not mentioned, but the output schema and annotations make the description sufficient for this straightforward read-only eligibility check.

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 100%, with both event_id and fields already well-documented. The description reinforces that event_id is the target event and that the response includes eligible/reason, but it does not add new parameter syntax or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('Partiful event by ID') and clearly states the outcome ('eligible for ticketing'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_tickets_for_event or get_host_ticket_types, which deal with actual ticketing details rather than eligibility.

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 description implies usage (when you need to determine ticketing eligibility) but provides no explicit context or exclusions. It does not name alternative tools for related queries, such as get_ticket_fee_config or get_host_ticket_types, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is the right choice.

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