eventbrite_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the most consequential trait for a paid scraper: pay-per-event pricing ($0.002/event), that platform usage is billed separately to the buyer's Apify account, and that the tool runs as an Apify actor. It omits auth/token prerequisites, failure behavior on bad place IDs, and runtime characteristics.

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 purpose and the mode list, then pricing, then execution context — a sensible ordering. It loses a point for restating the $0.002/event cost twice in adjacent sentences, which is redundant rather than harmful.

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 23-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, the main usage modes, and the cost model, and it hints at return content ('venue + organizer data by default'). What it lacks is any statement about the response shape or that results are truncated by _maxItems; given the exhaustive schema, this gap is modest rather than crippling.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a mode taxonomy (location search vs URL mode vs organizer mode vs dryRun) that groups the 23 flat parameters into mutually exclusive operating shapes — a distinction not obvious from the schema alone. Individual parameter semantics are left entirely to the thorough schema descriptions.

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+resource ('Scrape Eventbrite events') and enumerates the operating modes (city/query/category search, URL mode, organizer mode, dryRun), which lets an agent tell it apart from the sibling scrapers (tiktok_hashtag, lazada_products, pinterest). It never names a sibling alternative explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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 mode list ('Search by city/query/category, URL mode, organizer mode, dryRun') implicitly tells the agent which parameter family to reach for based on intent. It stops short of stating when not to use it or where the modes conflict (e.g. onlineOnly vs places, places requires radius), leaving that to the schema.

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