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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses what the response includes (provenance fields and venue facilities), which is useful, but it does not describe error behavior, missing-event responses, or whether any authentication/restrictions apply. The description adds meaningful output detail but leaves some behavioral gaps.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence conveys the tool's purpose, input source, and key output fields without wasted words. The parenthetical listing of provenance subfields is compact and immediately relevant.

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 single-id fetch tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical details: what to pass in and what to expect back. It does not discuss error responses or edge cases, but the core information needed to call the tool correctly is present.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that the id should come from search_events results, adding important semantic context beyond the bare string type. For a single parameter, this is sufficient 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 uses a specific verb ('Get full details') and identifies the exact resource ('one event by its id'). It also names the source of the id ('from search_events results') and lists key returned fields, making the tool's purpose distinct from siblings like get_event_history or 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?

The phrase 'from search_events results' provides clear context on how to obtain the required id and implies that search_events should be used first. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives like get_event_history, but the usage context is clear enough.

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