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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description need not repeat them. It adds valuable context by stating what is returned (agenda, participants, media links, associated documents) and the experimental limitation. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent a fuller understanding of the tool's 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?

The description is two sentences with no fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, with return details and a caveat in the second, and a practical source hint in the third. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (two parameters, one required, an output schema exists, and annotations declare safety properties), the description is fully sufficient. It covers the input source, expected return types, and a limitation. Nothing an agent needs to call the tool correctly is missing.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already provides detailed descriptions. The description adds no new information about the parameters beyond what the schema states — the event_id hint ('from openstates_search_events') duplicates the schema's own wording, and the include explanation mirrors the schema's enum descriptions. With full schema coverage, a baseline 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 states 'Fetch full event detail by OCD event ID' which is a clear verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like openstates_get_bill and openstates_get_committee by focusing specifically on events, and even directs the agent to the correct source tool for the ID, showing awareness of the tool's role.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Obtain the event_id from openstates_search_events', which is a clear usage guideline. It also warns that the tool is 'Experimental — event coverage is limited', setting correct expectations. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but since this is the only event-fetching tool, the guidance is sufficient.

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