get_ticket_buyer_settings

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it enumerates the settings returned (confirmation message, instructions, refund requests, attendee updates, survey info), lists concrete error codes (400 FIELD_INVALID, 403 NOT_AUTHORIZED, 404 NOT_FOUND), and states the auth requirement (Bearer PERSONAL_OAUTH_TOKEN). It stops short of describing response shape or pagination, but for a single-resource GET this is substantial.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then structured blocks (ENDPOINT, settings list, ERRORS, AUTHENTICATION). Some header labels are verbose but each line is informative; no filler.

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 1-param read tool with no output schema, the description supplies endpoint, returned setting categories, error codes, and auth — enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. Return value structure is the only notable 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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema documents it at 100% coverage ('Event ID (required)'). The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (Ticket Buyer Settings) scoped by Event, and pins the exact endpoint GET /events/{event_id}/ticket_buyer_settings/. Sibling update_ticket_buyer_settings is clearly distinguished by the read verb.

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 by the read-only endpoint and the settings enumeration, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given relative to siblings like update_ticket_buyer_settings or get_event.

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