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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: some fields are conditional ('set times when published') and practical facts are 'quoted from the official site', telling the agent to expect partial and verbatim third-party content rather than normalized data.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence leading with the resource and its key, then the returned contents. The colon-list runs long, but every item (set times, ticket link, FAQ) is informative rather than filler, so it reads as density rather than bloat.

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?

With only two parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the main open question is what comes back and where the id originates — both answered explicitly. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly on the first attempt.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the id is the value 'returned by search_events' and that slug form is accepted, but adds nothing the schema does not already say, and the 'locale' parameter (which controls language of texts and page links) is not mentioned in the description at all.

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 names a specific verb-resource pair (retrieve one party or festival by id or slug) and enumerates the payload: dates, venue, line-up, set times, practical facts, ticket link, FAQ. It explicitly ties itself to the sibling 'search_events' as the source of the id, so an agent can distinguish it from that tool without opening either schema.

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 parenthetical '(from search_events)' establishes the expected workflow — search first, then fetch by the returned id or slug — which is clear guidance for a detail-fetch tool. It stops short of stating when not to use it or naming other alternatives such as get_venue_events for browsing a venue's lineup.

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