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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that the tool is a read operation ('Retrieve'), that only published events are accessible, and what richer data is returned (description, contact information, delivery dates, accepted goods categories, external links). It does not cover error handling or authorization, but the disclosed behavior is sufficient for a simple getter.

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?

Three concise sentences each add value: the first defines the action and resource, the second clarifies the response richness, and the third gives ID sourcing guidance. There is no filler or redundant explanation beyond what is necessary.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly. It specifies the input source, the access constraint, and the type of data returned, so the agent understands both how to invoke it and what to expect.

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 parameter description already explains that eventId is a numeric event ID from a SearchEvents result. The tool description repeats this guidance but does not add substantial new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a clearly defined resource ('a single published flea market event from Svapp') with a concrete lookup key ('numeric event ID'). It also distinguishes itself by noting it 'Returns richer data than the search results', which separates it from search_events and get_article.

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 context by instructing to use the EventId field from SearchEvents results and by warning that only published events are accessible. It does not explicitly enumerate exclusions or alternative tools, but the resource distinction and the reference to SearchEvents make the intended workflow clear.

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