APIbase

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

Annotations already establish this is a safe, idempotent, read-only operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying 'upcoming' (temporal scope) and 'Ticketmaster' (external source). However, it omits pagination behavior details or what happens with invalid venue IDs.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action verb. Zero redundancy—every word earns its place. The parenthetical '(Ticketmaster)' efficiently disambiguates without adding bulk.

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?

Given the comprehensive input schema (8 well-documented parameters) and clear annotations, the description is sufficient for correct tool selection and invocation. While no output schema exists, the description adequately implies the return type (events) for an agent to proceed.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema carries the full burden of parameter documentation. The description reinforces the required 'venueId' parameter but adds no syntax details, format constraints, or usage examples beyond what the schema already provides (baseline 3).

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?

Description clearly states the specific action (Get upcoming events), resource type (events), and filtering mechanism (by venue ID), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like by_artist, nearby, or search. The '(Ticketmaster)' suffix clarifies the data source.

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 'by venue ID' implies usage context (when you have a specific venue identifier), but lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives. Users must infer that they should use ticketmaster.events.search if they lack a venue ID.

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