Verify Luma Host

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail: the check is relative to the authenticated Luma user. However, it does not disclose return shape or behavior for unknown or non-hosted events.

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 redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to the core meaning, and it is immediately scannable.

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 one-parameter, read-only, idempotent check, this description is largely complete: 'Check whether' communicates a boolean intent. It would be slightly stronger with an explicit note about the return format or how to interpret a false result, but the low complexity and rich annotations make the current definition adequate.

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% and the event_id parameter is already described as 'Luma event ID or slug.' The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond calling it an event, so the schema carries the semantic weight; the description neither improves nor harms parameter understanding.

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 whether') and names the exact resource and relationship: the authenticated Luma user hosting a given event. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_event, which fetches event details, and list_my_luma_events, which lists the user's events.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_event or list_my_luma_events. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios where it should or should not be used, leaving the agent to infer the intended use.

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