public_events_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It indicates the HTTP method (GET) and that the operation is public, implying it is read-only and safe. However, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, idempotent, or describe any response structure or edge cases.

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 sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no redundant information, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks information about the returned fields (e.g., event title, date, location) and any constraints (e.g., authentication, data freshness). For a public details endpoint, more context would improve understanding.

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 input schema already provides a description for the single parameter 'slug' ('Slug del evento'). The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline score 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 clearly states it retrieves public event details by slug, using a specific verb ('Detalle') and resource ('evento por slug'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'public_events_list' (listing) and 'public_events_availability' (availability), leaving no ambiguity.

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 does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'public_events_list' or 'public_events_availability'. Usage is implied (when you have a slug and need event details), but there is no direct comparison or exclusion criteria.

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