list_event_orders

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List', giving no information about pagination via the continuation parameter, filtering via changed_since or status, output shape, or any side effects. Some read intent is implied but not elaborated.

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 words. However, it is so terse that it omits important details, so it earns high marks for conciseness but not perfection.

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 list tool with four parameters, no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description should explain pagination and filter semantics. It only communicates scope, leaving an agent guessing about continuation and changed_since. The output schema helps with return values, but invocation semantics are still under-specified.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters. Only 'a specific event' loosely maps to event_id; status, continuation, and changed_since remain opaque. The description fails to compensate for the absent schema documentation.

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 the specific verb 'List' and names the resource 'ticket orders and buyer profiles', scoped to 'a specific event'. This is clear enough to distinguish it from organization-wide or user-wide order tools, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 phrase 'for a specific event' implies this is the event-scoped order list, which gives some usage context. However, it does not state when to prefer it over siblings like list_organization_orders, list_user_orders, or get_order, nor does it provide exclusions.

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