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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable non-obvious context: which fields are returned and that the PIN or card used is not returned, plus the underlying GET endpoint. It omits auth requirements and error behavior.

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 tightly written sentences plus the endpoint, with the key scoping phrase 'One event by id' front-loaded. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 single-resource read with annotation-backed safety, the description covers the return fields and one important exclusion. Without an output schema it does not explain error handling or why a missing or inaccessible event would look different, but it is otherwise complete enough to call correctly.

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%, and the single event_id parameter is documented as a RemoteLock UUID in the schema. The description reinforces that the id identifies one event but adds no format or syntax beyond the schema baseline.

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: fetch one event by id, and enumerates the returned fields (type, time, source, status, lock, person, method). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_notifications tool, but 'by id' and 'one event' make the scope clear.

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?

Says 'for example from a notification,' which implies when an agent has an event id, but it gives no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative such as list_notifications for browsing events.

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