get_ticket_fee_config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral nuance that omitting event_id returns the platform default, which is useful, but the listing of return fields is redundant given the output schema.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates purpose and the event/default distinction in a compact form.

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 a well-specified schema and output schema, plus annotations, the description covers all essential decision points: the tool's purpose, the meaning of optional event_id, and the type of data returned. No missing prerequisites or side-effect warnings are necessary for this read-only 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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description's emphasis on event-specific vs. default behavior is already captured in the event_id schema description, and the available fields are listed in the schema. Thus, the description adds no new parameter semantics 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource: Partiful's ticketing fee configuration, enumerating the components (flat fee, fee rate, custom rate indicator). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_event_ticketing_eligibility or get_tickets_for_event, which address different ticketing aspects.

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 explains the two usage modes: for a specific event via event_id or for the platform default when omitted. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the scope is clear and no sibling tool overlaps with fee configuration, so an agent can infer when to use it.

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