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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations: it returns only V³'s public summary, the full country-by-country analysis lives at the returned url, and a V³ account unlocks the multi-perspective analysis. This helps the agent set correct expectations about depth and access limitations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, opening with the core action and payload, then usage context, then access limitations, then the argument note. Each sentence serves a purpose and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to document return fields. It covers the tool's purpose, when to use it, how to get the id, and what the output represents, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The schema provides only a plain 'event_id' string with a 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does: 'the V³ event id from a prior tool result' tells the agent exactly where to source the value, though it does not specify format or validation rules.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a single V³ event' with a concrete list of contained fields (headline, why-it-matters, scores, perspectives, decisions, outcomes). It clearly differentiates itself from v3_search_events by framing this as the detail-retrieval step that follows search.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: use after v3_search_events or v3_breaking_now when the user wants detail on a specific event. This tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool rather than its siblings.

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