get_event_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that a list, scalar, or null response is an error, that the empty-object {} response is the compatible NOT_FOUND result, and that linked events are not resolved. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema. It could add auth or rate-limit details, but for a read tool the disclosed response contract is strong.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second sentence adds critical behavioral constraints and routing guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be fully described. The description covers the main purpose, the error contract, and the distinction from get_events. It is slightly incomplete because it does not explain the api_key and athlete_id parameters, but for a simple read-by-ID tool with an output schema, the essential context is present.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of event_id ('numeric ID') and the return semantics, but it does not explain api_key or athlete_id parameters. The description adds some value for event_id but leaves the other two parameters undocumented, so it only partially compensates for the schema 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Return'), a specific resource ('one event by numeric ID'), and a key behavioral constraint ('preserving its upstream object'). It also distinguishes itself from get_events by explicitly saying it does not resolve linked events, which helps an agent tell it apart from the sibling list tool.

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 explicitly says to use get_events for date-range discovery and notes that this tool intentionally does not resolve linked events. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, and names the alternative tool.

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