APIbase

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context by listing the specific data fields returned (seat map, classifications, etc.), which helps agents understand the data richness. It doesn't contradict annotations, though it omits error handling for invalid 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 efficient sentence with information front-loaded. The em-dash construction lists return fields without verbosity. Every word earns its place—'full details' establishes comprehensiveness, the parenthetical '(Ticketmaster)' identifies the source, and the field enumeration clarifies scope.

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 simple 2-parameter read-only lookup tool with complete schema annotations, the description is sufficient. It compensates for the missing output schema by enumerating the key data fields returned. No critical gaps given the tool's limited complexity and safety profile.

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 (both 'id' and 'locale' well-documented with examples), the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic context by implying the 'id' parameter unlocks access to the detailed fields listed (venues, prices, etc.), elevating it slightly above baseline despite not adding explicit parameter syntax details.

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 ('Get full details') with clear resource ('event') and enumerates exact fields returned (dates, venues, prices, images, classifications, seat map). This distinguishes it from sibling search/listing tools like 'ticketmaster.events.search' which would return summaries rather than comprehensive event metadata.

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 implies usage through the required 'id' parameter and 'full details' phrasing, suggesting it's for retrieving specific events after discovery. However, it lacks explicit guidance on the workflow (e.g., 'use this after finding an event ID via search') or contrast with sibling tools like 'ticketmaster.events.nearby' or 'ticketmaster.events.by_artist'.

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