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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description's added value is limited to naming the categories of data returned, without saying anything about missing/expired events, freshness, or rate behavior.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the keying mechanism (id) and then lists the payload. Nothing is redundant or padded, though there is no structure beyond a single clause.

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 one required parameter at full schema coverage, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description needs to do little and it covers the essential what-and-by-what. A brief note on behavior for unknown or stale ids would close the remaining gap.

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 parameter already documents that the id comes from search_events results. The phrase '행사 id로' adds no syntax, format, or constraint information beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb (가져옵니다 / fetch) and resource (행사 / event) and enumerates what is retrieved: schedule, venue, fees, reservation guidance, source links. It is clearly a single-record lookup, distinguishable in practice from search_events, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with that sibling.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'by event id' suggests this is a detail fetch following a search, but the description never says to use it after search_events or when to prefer it over ask_events. The only workflow hint ('행사 id from search_events results') lives in the schema, not the description.

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