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

With no annotations present, the description carries the load and does it well: it discloses the returned payload shape, the `structured_data` JSON-LD with the `<` escaping requirement, and that contact email/phone are gated behind authentication or an API key. It stops short of saying what happens for invalid ids or unlisted programs, so a small gap remains.

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 dense sentence that leads with the verb and resource, then enumerates returns and auth caveats in a sensible order. The `structured_data` escaping hint is worth its space, but the sentence runs long enough that the auth note could be split for easier scanning.

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?

With no output schema, the description steps in and names the returned fields (description, organizer, venue, schedules, next dates, links), plus the auth-gated fields. Only error/not-found behavior and how 'next dates' are computed are left unstated, which is a modest gap for a one-parameter read.

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 the id_or_slug property already documents the uuid-or-slug format with an example. The description restates the id-or-slug duality and adds that cancelled programs are retrievable, which is minor added meaning rather than compensating for a gap.

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 with scope: fetch one program, published or cancelled, by id or slug. That scope cleanly separates it from siblings like search_programs and list_program_occurrences without either schema being opened.

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 phrase 'by id or slug' implies this is the single-record lookup once an identifier is known, which is usable context. However, it never names an alternative such as search_programs for discovery or states what to do when the identifier is unknown or the program is unpublished.

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