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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about single-record retrieval and the optional include behavior, but does not disclose error cases, missing-ID handling, or what happens when includes are omitted beyond the schema default. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 covers the core action, the identifier variants, and the optional include behavior. Every clause adds information, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 annotations, an output schema, a simple two-parameter input, and clear ID semantics, the description is largely sufficient for correct invocation. It could be stronger by explicitly mentioning that include defaults to both stars and extras, but the schema already supplies that default.

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 about 50%, with event_id already well-described. The description adds minimal but useful meaning for include by mapping it to 'related performers and editorial entries', which clarifies the opaque enum values. However, it does not fully compensate for the lack of an include description in 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?

The description clearly identifies the verb ('Get'), the resource ('one event'), and the key lookup methods ('canonical show_stable_id or legacy source ID'). It also notes optional inclusion of related data, which helps distinguish this fetch-by-ID tool from the search-oriented siblings, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 implies the tool is for fetching a single event by ID, but it never states when to prefer this over search_events or get_editorial/get_performer. There is no explicit exclusion or alternative-routing guidance, leaving the agent to infer the right context from sibling names alone.

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