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 a return shape ({id, name, startDateTime, channels:[...], contentReference}) and explicitly states 'Auth: none needed', which are behavioral details beyond the annotations. No contradictions, and the description does not repeat annotation data. A solid contribution given the low complexity.

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 extremely compact: one main sentence for the action, plus two short lines for return shape and auth. Every sentence provides necessary information, and the primary purpose is front-loaded. There is zero redundancy or 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?

For a simple single-get tool with one parameter and rich annotations, the description covers the return fields and auth, which are the main operational details. It does not mention error handling (e.g., what happens if eventId not found) but that is not essential for a straightforward get-by-id. The low complexity and annotation coverage keep this adequate.

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 input schema fully documents the single parameter 'eventId' with a description including that it is required and part of the URL path. The description only says 'by id', which adds nothing beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get a single broadcast event by id' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from the sibling list tool 'afl_broadcast_events' and 'afl_broadcast_match_events'. The singular 'by id' makes the tool's scope unambiguous, so an agent can pick it apart from alternatives even without seeing sibling descriptions.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage through the phrase 'single ... by id' (suggesting you use it when you have a specific eventId), but it does not mention alternatives like afl_broadcast_events or any conditions for selection. This falls under 'implied usage' at best.

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