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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral limitation (listing/filtering not supported), the requirement of a known ID, and the return format (a one-element events array). While it doesn't detail error behavior or auth, it covers the core operational traits that an agent needs to know.

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 well-structured with clear USE WHEN and DON'T USE sections, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, but every sentence earns its place by disambiguating from siblings and explaining the return contract.

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?

The tool is simple, and the output schema exists, so return values don't need explanation. The description covers when to use, when not to use, and the return shape. Missing edge-case handling (e.g., not-found behavior) is a minor gap, but the description is sufficient 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by reiterating the ID format (evt_ vs TE) and the server_name requirement, but these are already in the schema. It does not explain container_id beyond what's there, so it adds no new meaning to parameters.

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 'Fetch ONE event by its ID' with the specific constraint that it only works with a known event_id, and explicitly differentiates itself from listing/filtering tools. It names the resource (event) and the exact action (fetch by ID), making it distinguishable from siblings like query_events.

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 provides explicit 'USE WHEN' and 'DON'T USE' sections, naming get_report and get_summary as alternatives for counts, trends, and snapshots, and even instructs agents to ask users for a dashboard ID when raw events are needed. This is the clearest possible routing guidance.

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