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

The description is consistent with the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) and does not contradict them. However, it adds no extra transparency beyond the annotations, such as potential side effects or error conditions.

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 concise, using only two short sentences, and is well-structured with a separate 'Guidance' line. It is easy to read and does not contain fluff, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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?

The description covers the basic purpose and parameters, but it does not mention any output format, prerequisites, or related list tools (e.g., cms_list_event_paragraphs). Given that there is no output schema, the description could still benefit from a note about what is returned or when to use this after listing paragraphs.

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 schema already provides descriptions for both parameters ('Event id returned by cms_list_events' and 'Paragraph id returned by cms_list_event_paragraphs'), covering 100% of parameters. The tool description adds no additional semantic information beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'read' and identifies the resource as an 'event paragraph' with a specific identifier. It is distinct enough given the tool name includes 'event' and the description mentions 'agenda event paragraph.' However, it is terse and does not elaborate on what a paragraph is.

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 description provides a basic guidance line ('Retrieve one agenda event paragraph by paragraph id') but does not explicitly explain when to choose this over other paragraph getter tools (e.g., cms_get_article_paragraph). The distinction is implicit via the resource type, but no explicit selection criteria are given.

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