get_event_details

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get full details' without specifying what those details include, any error behavior (e.g., invalid ID, not found), authentication requirements, or response format. This lack of extra behavioral context beyond the tool's name is a significant gap.

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 or redundancy. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's purpose, making it both concise and well-structured.

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 relatively simple (1 parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks contextual details about the returned content ('full details' is vague), error conditions, or how this differs from the sibling search tools. Given the low complexity, the description is minimally viable but has clear gaps that would benefit from elaboration.

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?

The input schema already describes the only parameter 'eventId' as 'Ticketmaster event ID' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond rephrasing the schema ('using its Ticketmaster event ID'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since there is no added semantic value.

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 'Get full details for a specific event using its Ticketmaster event ID,' which clearly identifies both the action (get details) and the resource (a specific event). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_events or events_by_category, which focus on listing or filtering events rather than retrieving a single event's full details.

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 that this tool should be used when you have a specific event ID and need full details, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over the sibling tools or provide any when-not-to-use guidance. The context is clear but unstated, so the usage guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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