ver_evento

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, covering the safety and side-effect profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting that the output includes invitation links, but it does not discuss auth, error behavior, or the scope of 'detalle.'

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 compact sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and includes no filler. Every phrase contributes meaning about the output scope.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description captures the essential return scope: event details and invitation links. However, 'Detalle' is vague, and with no output schema, the exact shape of the response remains somewhat ambiguous.

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?

Input schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain evento_id beyond what the schema's 'Evento Id' title already conveys. With a low coverage rate, the description should compensate for the missing parameter guidance, but it adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 tool returns details of an event and its invitations with links, naming a specific resource and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ver_invitacion (single invitation) and listar_eventos (list). The read-only intent is also consistent with the annotations.

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 makes the use case evident: when an agent needs event detail along with invitation links, this is the tool to invoke. It provides clear context about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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