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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds that it includes attempts, deliveries, and optional raw payload, which goes beyond annotations by specifying what data is returned. No contradictions exist.

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 sentence of 10 words efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key features. It is front-loaded with 'Authenticated tool for reading' and contains no redundant information.

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?

Without an output schema, the description partially covers return content (attempts, deliveries, payload) but lacks specifics on structure, fields, or error conditions. For a read tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description links 'optional raw payload' to the includePayload parameter but does not explain eventId or provide format details. This adds moderate value but leaves gaps for the required parameter.

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 tool reads one event, including attempts, deliveries, and optional raw payload. It distinguishes from siblings like list_recent_events by focusing on a single event with detailed nested data.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_recent_events or get_message. The term 'Authenticated' hints at access requirements but does not contextualize usage among similar tools.

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