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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuinely useful context — the start time is normalized to Pacific and the app_url is included for joining — but it does not disclose failure behavior for a bad or stale id, and the enumerated return fields partly repeat what the output schema already declares.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and key, followed by the id source and return contents. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 one-parameter read with a rich output schema, the description covers the input source, scope, and the notable Pacific-time normalization, which is enough to call correctly. The only real gap is error/not-found handling, a minor omission for a tool this simple.

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 a single parameter and 100% schema coverage (including an example id format), the baseline would be 3; the description earns above baseline by explaining the provenance of event_id, telling the agent where valid values originate. It does not add id format or validation details beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get full details for one Buffet pick') and the exact lookup key ('by its event id'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like buffet_search_events or buffet_get_weekly_lineup, which produce ids rather than resolve them.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent by naming where ids come from (buffet_get_weekly_lineup and buffet_search_events), which establishes the sequencing: discover first, then call this. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it (e.g., browsing vs. detail lookup), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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