Get one event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral nuance — source code is returned only 'when the machine sends it' — but otherwise just lists payload contents. No auth, latency, or rate-limit context.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action ('Get one event's full detail') followed by the payload inventory. Every clause carries information, though the enumerated list is longer than strictly needed.

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 tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description is broadly sufficient; return-value detail is technically redundant with the output schema but acts as a useful preview. The missing piece is routing guidance against sibling read tools.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains that event_id is the 'id' field from a search_events result. The description adds nothing about the parameter. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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 (get) and resource (one event) and enumerates what 'full detail' means: stack trace, origin, creation site, source code, note, and producing runs. It is unmistakable what the tool returns. It does not, however, name or contrast with siblings like search_events or event_map, so the agent must infer the distinction itself.

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?

Usage is only implied by the singular 'one event' plus the schema's note that the id comes from a search_events result. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus search_events, event_map, or list_runs, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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