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

Annotations declare the read-only, non-destructive, open-world profile, and the description adds useful context beyond that: the returned event mirrors Edit Details plus RSVP limit and max additional guests (up to 9), and it requires a Cotlet API key with access to this app. Some detail on error behavior or scope of access is still absent.

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?

Front-loads the resource and returned fields, then the usage guidance, then the auth note. Slightly dense but every clause serves a purpose; the long field list is the only mild bloat.

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 no output schema, the description correctly describes the return contents and the auth prerequisite, which is what an agent needs for a single-object read. It could mention what happens if the event_id is invalid or unrelated, but coverage is strong for this complexity.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single required parameter event_id is fully documented as coming from list_events. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 ('Get event') and enumerates the returned fields (title, hosts, date, time zone, RSVP settings), which separates it clearly from list_events. An agent can tell what it retrieves without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to use it before update_event or set_reminders to read the date and time zone, which is concrete prerequisite guidance. It does not explicitly say when not to use it (e.g., versus list_events for multiple events), leaving a minor gap.

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