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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: an API key plus the Events layer entitlement is required, and the response includes evidence and revision data. It stops short of describing error behavior for a missing key or unknown 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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The auth prerequisite is front-loaded, which is defensible for a gated tool, though the core purpose statement could arguably come first.

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 one-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the definition covers access requirements, the lookup key, and the shape of the returned content. A note on behavior for an invalid id would make it fully complete.

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 0% and the single `id` property is typed only as a string with no description. The phrase "One Event by id" at least confirms the id refers to the Event identifier, which is marginal added meaning over the schema.

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?

"One Event by id, with its evidence and revision" identifies the specific resource (a single Event), the retrieval key (id), and the payload content. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_events or list_regions by being a single-record lookup, though the verb is implied rather than stated.

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 auth prerequisite (WarStrikes API key with the Events layer) is clear, and "by id" implies this is the follow-up call after finding an id elsewhere. However, it never explicitly says to use search_events to discover ids or when to prefer this over search_events.

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