hotmart_event_dashboard_app

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It describes the visual components (card, DataTable, PieChart) and the product format constraint, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, response structure, or error handling. The dashboard context implies safe operation, but without annotations or explicit disclosure, the transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise, using three short sentences: a title listing components, a line listing the visual elements, and a line with constraints and usage examples. Every sentence is informative and necessary. The structure is front-loaded, making the purpose immediately clear. There is no superfluous content.

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 dashboard app with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers its functionality: it provides an info card, participant DataTable, and lot breakdown PieChart. It identifies the constraint of ETICKET-only. While it could mention error cases (e.g., invalid event ID), the description is complete enough for an agent to decide to invoke it. The sibling tools cover more granular data, so the dashboard's scope is clear.

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 has 100% cover. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides for the single 'event_id' parameter. The schema already states it's an integer event ID. Given the high coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description adds no extra semantic guidance.

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 clearly states it is an event dashboard with info, participant list, and breakdown by lots. It specifies it works only for ETICKET products (not ONLINE_EVENT), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like hotmart_event_info_get and hotmart_event_participants_list. The provided example queries 'ver dados do evento X' and 'quem comprou ingresso pro evento' reinforce its specific purpose.

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 explicitly limits usage to ETICKET format and provides example use cases. It excludes ONLINE_EVENT, giving clear when-not-to-use guidance. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools for other event formats, which would have made it more complete. The examples are helpful for an agent to match user queries.

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