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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds critical behavioral context: it requires the 'logs' permission, decodes server-side, omits base64 bytes in payload, and provides a detailed response envelope structure. This significantly enhances transparency for the agent.

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 fairly long but every section contributes: the core action, permission, and the comprehensive response envelope. It is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, and the detailed field list is justified given the absence of an output schema. The length is appropriate for the complexity.

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 no output schema, the description fully enumerates the return envelope (summary, endpoints, app_layer, flow, payload, decoded, findings, metadata, raw record) and explains key details like payload truncation and decoded protocol parsing. It also specifies the prerequisite of using eve_search for id discovery, making the tool self-sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

The schema already fully documents the id parameter, including its type and source (from eve_search results). The description reinforces this by mentioning 'by id' and referencing eve_search, but does not add substantial new meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 tool fetches a single Suricata EVE event by id, decodes it server-side, and wraps a specific REST endpoint. It differentiates from siblings by focusing on single-event retrieval and explicitly mentions using eve_search to locate ids, which is the complementary search tool.

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 explicitly instructs to use eve_search to locate ids, establishing a clear workflow and an alternative tool. It implies the tool is for retrieving full event details when an id is known, though it does not explicitly enumerate other alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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