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

The description indicates a read operation, which is appropriate. However, with no annotations provided, it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., if id not found), authentication needs, or rate limits. For a simple get, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, making it easy to parse.

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 tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers the main return contents (source links, conflict note). However, it omits the lang parameter and could benefit from a brief usage hint relative to sibling tools.

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 has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the 'lang' parameter's purpose or default behavior. It adds no semantic meaning beyond what the schema properties show (id is a string, lang is an enum).

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 the verb 'Get', the resource 'single COMPAMIR event by id', and specifies what is included (source links and conflict note). It easily distinguishes from siblings list_conflicts and search_events.

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?

Usage is implied: use when you know the id. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs search_events or list_conflicts, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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