afl_broadcast_event_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the exact return shape and explicitly noting that no authentication is required. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action. The return format and auth note are useful, but the 'Also answers this' line is awkwardly phrased and could obscure rather than clarify; still, it remains compact and scannable.

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-only get-by-id tool with one documented parameter, the description provides the essential return fields and auth requirement. The output schema is absent, so the explicit return object helps fill that gap. Error behavior is not discussed, but overall the tool is adequately specified.

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 schema already fully describes the only parameter, eventId, including that it is required and part of the URL path. The description does not add further parameter meaning beyond the phrase 'by id,' so the baseline 3 applies given 100% schema coverage.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource+scope: 'Get a single broadcast event by id.' This distinguishes it from list-style sibling tools like afl_broadcast_events and from match-event-specific tools like afl_broadcast_match_events. The listed return fields reinforce the singular-event purpose.

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 conveys use context by emphasizing 'single ... by id' and stating 'Auth: none needed.' It does not explicitly contrast with list alternatives, but the singular scope and alias list provide reasonable guidance. The 'Also answers this' line hints at overlap with other tools, though not as clearly as a direct alternative recommendation.

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