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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the storylines are computed from the record and detailing what categories are included, which helps the agent set expectations about the output beyond the annotation flags.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then enumerates concrete storyline types. It is one long sentence but every clause adds meaningful content, with no redundant filler.

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?

With one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description does a good job of explaining what the response will contain. It could be slightly more explicit about the exact return shape, such as whether it is a list of strings, but the outlined categories make the expected content clear.

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?

The single parameter is already fully documented in the schema as an event slug or numeric id, so the description does not need to repeat it. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but the schema coverage is 100%, 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns the talking points for one event card, computed from the record. It enumerates specific storyline categories, which makes the tool's purpose concrete and distinguishes it from siblings like get_event_card or get_event_live.

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 use case is implied: call this when you need narrative or storyline context for a card, rather than the card itself. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it differs from sibling tools, so the agent must infer this.

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