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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint/openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the proposal-locking rule (at signing, 2 weeks or 1 week before, or never) and that the response reports the lock state, plus the Cotlet API key access requirement.

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 return contents are enumerated twice in back-to-back sentences ("One event with dates, spaces, guests, contact, status, notes, proposal totals..." then "Returns the details of one event: date and time, spaces, group size..."), which is redundant padding. The locking and auth sentences earn their place, but the duplicated field list does not.

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 read-only single-record fetch with no output schema, the description covers the return payload, the locking behavior, the follow-on tools, and the auth requirement. It is essentially complete, with only the redundancy noted above detracting from it.

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 already documented as coming from list_events, so the description has nothing further to add. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 (get) and resource (one event) and enumerates what it returns: date/time, spaces, group size, event type, owner, contact, status, notes, and proposal summary with totals/deposit/balance. It also distinguishes itself by naming update_event and send_proposal as the follow-on tools, so an agent can place it precisely.

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?

"Use it before update_event or send_proposal" gives a clear sequencing context, telling the agent when this read is warranted. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with list_events (the sibling that enumerates events versus this single-event fetch), so the routing guidance is good but not complete.

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