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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the shape and depth of the returned record (organizer, every upcoming date with venue and ticket link, price range, map location) — important since there is no output schema. It stops short of noting rate limits or behavior for unknown ids.

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 front-loaded sentence, no filler, with the identification ('one event by its id') preceding the payoff list. Every clause — source tool, return fields — carries information the agent uses.

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 simple id-lookup with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating what comes back, and the single required parameter is fully covered by the schema. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this 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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage the schema already documents the id, and the description largely restates its provenance rather than adding new constraints. The baseline for a fully documented single-param tool 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 verb and resource ('Full details of one event by its id') and immediately anchors the id's provenance to search_events, which distinguishes it from that sibling without opening either schema. It then enumerates the payload, so an agent knows exactly what a call yields.

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 phrase 'by its id from search_events' implies the intended workflow: search first, then drill into a single event. It gives clear context for when to use it but names no explicit exclusions or failure cases (e.g. what to do if the id is stale).

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