get_event_details

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 states the tool retrieves details but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what details are included in the response. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information efficiently.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, response format, or error cases, which are important for a read operation with no structured output schema.

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 100%, with the parameter 'eventId' documented as 'The unique identifier for the event.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it only restates the need for an event ID. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately covers the parameter.

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 verb ('Get details') and resource ('specific event'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_events' by specifying retrieval of a single event by ID, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other 'get_*_details' tools (e.g., 'get_room_details').

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 implied by the description's focus on a 'specific event by event ID', suggesting it should be used when you have an event ID rather than listing events. However, no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'list_events' or other 'get_*_details' tools is provided, leaving some ambiguity.

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