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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the cross-tool dependency on dice_browse for the id and by enumerating the returned fields in the absence of an output schema; it does not mention auth or rate limits.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the return contents and closed with the input requirement. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 single-record read tool with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned data, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The input source is specified, so an agent can invoke it correctly without further information.

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?

Only one parameter, documented at 100% coverage in the schema, which already explains the event_id format and its origin in dice_browse's `id` field. The description restates that dependency but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('full detail for one DICE event') and enumerates exactly what the payload contains: description, venue+address, dates, starting price, lineup, age/content highlights. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from dice_browse by framing this as the single-event detail view rather than the listing.

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?

Gives a clear prerequisite: it 'needs the event id from dice_browse', telling the agent it must browse first. It does not explicitly state when-not to use it (e.g. vs. browsing a list), so it falls short of the full when/when-not/alternatives bar.

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