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

Annotations already declare readOnly/destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it details the exact fields returned and states the auth requirement ('Cotlet API key with access to this app'), which the annotations do not convey.

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-loaded and short overall, but the field list is stated twice ('title, host, date, time, location and the design type' then 'title, host name, date and time, time zone and location'), which is redundant for a definition this size.

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 usefully enumerates the payload and covers auth and usage. It lacks any note on error cases or whether the event must be owned/draft, but for a single-parameter read it is largely sufficient.

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% and the single event_id parameter is documented there, including its provenance ('Card or Flyer ID from list_events'). The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource (get event) and enumerates the returned fields (title, host, date/time, location, design type). It does not name a sibling, but the phrase 'what guests see on the invitation' distinguishes it from list_events and the guest/message tools.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger: 'Use it before a time or location message so the text matches the invitation.' This tells the agent when to call it, though it does not explicitly name the alternative (e.g., list_events for discovery vs. this tool for detail).

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