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 full burden. It usefully enumerates what the response contains (activities, attendees, committees, related business) and clarifies the filtering behavior of show_on_website_only, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens when an ID is not found. Adequate but incomplete for a no-annotation tool.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded with purpose, and the Args/Returns docstring structure is easy to scan. The Returns line ('Detailed information about the event.') is nearly redundant given the output schema, but overall the text is tight.

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 simple read tool with one required param and an existing output schema, the description covers purpose, both parameters, and a rough sense of the return payload. Only the absence of error/not-found behavior and sibling differentiation keeps it from being fully complete.

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 both parameters: event_id as a 'Unique event ID number' and show_on_website_only as 'Show only events visible on website,' adding meaning beyond the bare schema titles (and clarifying the non-obvious default=true filter).

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 detailed information about a specific committee event by ID'), which is clearly distinguishable from the many non-event siblings. However, it does not differentiate itself from close siblings like get_events or get_committee_events, so an agent must infer the difference from the ID-based lookup pattern.

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?

'Use when you need complete event details including activities, attendees, committees involved, and related business' gives an implied usage context. It does not name alternatives (e.g., get_committee_events for listing vs. this for a single event by ID) or state any exclusions, so routing guidance is only implied.

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