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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds the concrete return payload (fields returned), the stats opt-in behavior, and the underlying endpoint GET /events/{id}. It does not discuss auth requirements, rate limits, or not-found behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary payload, then the optional flag, then the sibling routing, then the endpoint. Every sentence carries distinct information with no restatement of the name.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does so effectively by enumerating the fields. It leaves minor gaps around failure modes and whether listings are paginated, but nothing an agent needs in order to call it 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% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: the schema only lists 'stats' as a value, whereas the description explains that include=stats yields registration counts. The event id is implicitly framed as the selector for both this and the attendee tools.

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 ('Get one event in full') and immediately enumerates what that record contains: dates, location, ticket prices, early-bird prices, descriptions, max spots, contact, instructors. It also names the sibling tools it is not, so an agent can distinguish it from corsizio_get_event_with_attendees and corsizio_list_attendees without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit routing: 'Use include=stats for registration counts' and 'For the attendee list use corsizio_list_attendees with the event id (or corsizio_get_event_with_attendees).' Both the when-to-use and the alternatives are named, leaving nothing to inference.

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