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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return contents ('all its tags, venue, links and times'), which is genuine value, but says nothing about read-only semantics, auth requirements, or what happens with an unknown/invalid id.

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 tight sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and well within budget. 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 simple one-parameter read tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers both the source of the input id and the shape of the returned record. Only minor gaps remain around error behavior and edge handling.

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?

One required parameter at 0% schema coverage, so the description must compensate and only partially does: it establishes that 'id' identifies a single event and comes from search_events. It adds no format or validity constraints for the id itself.

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 and resource ('Everything known about one event by its id') and enumerates the payload (tags, venue, links, times). The parenthetical '(from search_events)' implicitly contrasts it with the sibling that supplies ids, though it never names list_coverage or explicitly frames itself as the detail counterpart to search.

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 '(from search_events)' note gives an implied workflow: obtain an id from search_events, then call this. That is useful context, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no mention of how it relates to list_coverage.

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