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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: payloads can be large and often contain personal data, which warns the agent about the operation's nature. It also mentions 'Account or local store' as a location qualifier. This goes beyond the annotation, though it doesn't describe error handling or response size 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?

The description is three sentences, front-loading the core purpose and immediately adding the key usage constraint. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 read-only tool with one required parameter, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, the source of id, and important caveats about payload size and privacy. The lack of output schema is acceptable because the description implies the return contains full event detail. Minor gaps like error handling are not critical for this simple operation.

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%: both id and api_key have detailed descriptions. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies. The mention that id comes from anyhook_events is already in the schema.

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 the tool provides full detail for one event by id, specifically including the inbound headers and body that anyhook_events omits, plus the destination's response. This is a specific verb and resource, and it explicitly differentiates from the sibling anyhook_events by noting what it adds.

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 description gives clear usage guidance: 'fetch one at a time, only when the body is needed' and warns about large payloads and personal data. It implies this tool is for when the full body is required, contrasting with anyhook_events which omits these details. However, it doesn't explicitly state alternatives for other use cases, so it's not a full 5.

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