Get Event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing on top of that - no error behavior for missing ids, no note on what is returned. With annotations doing all the work and the description contributing zero additional behavioral context, a 2 is appropriate.

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 short sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the verb. It is efficient, though so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than being tightened prose.

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 trivial read-only single-record fetch, the annotations and 100%-covered schema carry most of the load, so the description is barely adequate rather than deficient. Still, with no output schema it could have said what an event record contains or how a missing id is handled, and the "event type" vs "event id" wording is a loose end.

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 single id parameter is fully typed as a UUID with a pattern and a description. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Per the rubric, one well-documented parameter with full coverage earns the baseline 3.

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 ("Get one event"), and the word "one" implicitly separates it from the sibling list-events. However, it says "event type" while the schema's only parameter is "The event id", a small terminology mismatch that slightly blurs what is being fetched. No explicit sibling differentiation beyond the singular/plural contrast.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus list-events, get-contact, or any other single-resource getter. No prerequisites, no mention of what happens with an unknown id. The agent must infer that an id is required to retrieve exactly one record.

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