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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the returned content (exceptions, frames with variables, breadcrumbs, request, user, contexts, tags, extra, grouping) and noting data is 'scrubbed', which tells the agent the payload is complete but sanitized.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and scope, then lists the payload. The trailing comma-list is dense but each item is informative and nothing is wasted.

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 simple read tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields so the agent knows what it gets without opening a schema. Annotations cover safety; the main minor gap is absent routing guidance toward sibling search/list tools.

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 both appId and eventId are fully documented in the schema (including the 32-hex-digit format). The description only says 'by its id' and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource (retrieve one event) and scopes it by id, enumerating the payload an agent will get back. It implicitly contrasts with list_issue_events and search_events by emphasizing the single full record, but it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

'One event by its id' implies the usage condition (you have an id and need the full record), which usefully distinguishes it from search/list tools by implication. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-search_events guidance or prerequisite statement.

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