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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety and idempotency profile is fully covered. The description adds only 'full details', implying a complete single-record return, with no mention of auth needs, not-found behavior, or localization effects from locale.

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 sentence, zero filler, with the resource and lookup key front-loaded. Nothing is wasted and nothing needs trimming.

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 tool is simple and richly annotated, so little is required, but with no output schema the description carries the burden of indicating what 'full details' returns and what happens for an unknown slug. It leaves both unaddressed, and the locale parameter's effect is unexplained.

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 50%: slug is documented with a concrete example, but locale is an enum with a default and no description. The description reinforces that slug is the identifying key, adding a little meaning, but says nothing about what locale controls (language of returned details) – a real gap at this coverage level.

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'), resource ('vanlife event'), scope ('single'), and lookup key ('by its slug'), which implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_events. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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: an agent must infer that this tool applies when it already has a slug in hand. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to list_events for slug discovery, and no prerequisites mentioned.

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