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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), so the lower bar applies. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond those hints: the description is 'untruncated', the end time is 'predicted' only 'when the listing omitted one', and the ticket offer is 'publishable' — traits inferable from neither annotations nor schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that opens with the action and then packs the value-adding return inventory into a compact list. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler and no repetition of schema or annotation content.

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 single-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool, everything needed to invoke it correctly is present: the parameter is fully documented in the schema, safety is carried by annotations, and the absence of an output schema is compensated by the detailed enumeration of return fields, including the conditional 'predicted end time' behavior.

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 schema already defines event_id as 'The UUID of the event to retrieve'. The description's 'by its ID' reiterates that role without adding format, constraint, or usage nuance, so the high-coverage baseline of 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 action ('Get full details') against a specific resource ('a specific event') with a clear accessor ('by its ID'), then enumerates the exact return contents. This distinguishes it from sibling search/list tools like search_events and get_event_schedule, whose names imply broader query scopes rather than point lookups.

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 'by its ID' phrasing clearly signals the tool requires a known event UUID rather than a query, which orients an agent to choose it only when an identifier is already in hand. It does not, however, explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, a minor gap given 16 siblings.

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