Get Luma event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, setting baseline expectations. The description adds 'complete details', which implies all available fields are returned, but does not elaborate on behavior like pagination, formatting, or potential errors. No contradiction with annotations.

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 of few words. It is appropriately short for a simple tool, though it could be structured with bullet points for clarity.

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 has one parameter, no output schema, and annotations present, the description is incomplete. It does not describe what 'complete details' means in terms of return values or any edge cases (e.g., invalid event_id). The agent would lack information on what to expect as output.

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 does not explain the purpose or format of 'event_id', leaving the agent to infer from the parameter name alone. This is insufficient for a required parameter.

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 the action: 'Get complete details for one Luma event.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Luma event'), and by naming 'one event', it differentiates from siblings like list_events (which returns multiple events).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., event_id must exist) or when to prefer other tools like list_events or registration_summary.

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