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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring the safety profile, the description adds real value by disclosing the response contents and the non-obvious cross-tool linkage that each date's _id is the event_date_id other tools consume. It omits auth/region-scoping behavior and error cases, but the added context clearly exceeds the annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the resource first, then the returned fields, followed by the endpoint reference. Dense but every clause earns its place; only the field enumeration grows long.

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 enumerating returned fields is exactly what's needed, and the event_date_id hint prevents misuse of downstream tools. Missing only explicit sibling routing (vs list_events) and any error/not-found behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, and both event_id (24-char hex) and override_location (per-region data storage) are already documented there. The description adds nothing about parameters, 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 ('Fetch one event') and enumerates the exact payload it returns (name, dates, ticket types, pricing, capacity, publish state). 'One event' cleanly distinguishes it from humanitix_list_events and humanitix_list_global_events without needing to open 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?

The singular 'one event' plus a required 24-hex event_id implies you call this when you already have an event id, but the description never states when to prefer it over list_events or update_event, and lists no preconditions. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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