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

With readOnlyHint=true already signaling safe read-only behavior, the description adds useful context: the 'kind' field is absent when not published, and the response includes a dynamic 'today' summary with booth, live offer, and agenda counts. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Full detail for one event') followed by useful clarifying details about response contents and identifier formats. It is slightly dense in a single sentence but every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the key return aspects (kind plus today's summary counts) and identifier acceptance. It does not enumerate all 'full detail' fields, but that is not necessary for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the parameter description already thoroughly documents accepted forms: id, slug, event name, and common short forms. The tool description restates only 'event id or its public slug', adding no real semantic value beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 title and description clearly identify this as retrieving full detail for a single event, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one Sonar event'). It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools like events_list and specialized detail tools like events_booth_detail by focusing on the event as a whole.

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 use when a caller needs full event detail and already has an identifier, and the parameter documentation explicitly references events_list as the source for event names. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it misses the top bar.

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