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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return contents (summary, AI synthesis, linked entities), which is useful. However, it doesn't explicitly state that the operation is read-only or has no side effects, though 'get' implies this. It also doesn't mention any potential variability from AI synthesis.

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?

The description is a single concise phrase, front-loaded with 'Event 상세' (Event details), and immediately conveys the key content. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (summary, AI synthesis, linked entities) and implies the resource type. It lacks some context like return format or any constraints, but given the low complexity, it is fairly complete.

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?

The schema has a single 'id' with no description, and the description does not explicitly explain it. However, the tool name and type make it obvious that 'id' refers to the event identifier. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, but for a single obvious parameter, this is acceptable.

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?

The description clearly states that the tool retrieves event details, including case summary, AI synthesis, and linked entities. The verb 'get' is implied by the name, and the resource ('Event') is explicit. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_events' by focusing on a single event.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it's for retrieving a single event by ID or that 'list_events' should be used for browsing. Without such direction, the agent may not know which tool to select.

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