event_show

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load; it does disclose the returned components (header, refs, payload), which is real behavioral context. It does not state that the operation is read-only, what happens when event_id is unknown, or any access constraints.

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 short and front-loads the purpose in the first sentence. The "Args:" block is redundant against the schema but costs little.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained further, and for a single-record fetch the description is close to sufficient. It still leaves the source of the event_id and error behavior unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but "event_id: The event's id." is a tautology that adds nothing. It omits where an id comes from (presumably events_list) or any format expectation.

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 and resource ("Show one operator event") and enumerates the returned sections (header, refs, payload), which distinguishes it from a bulk list operation. It never names the sibling events_list, so the differentiation is implied by "one" rather than explicit.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and the obvious alternative (events_list) is never referenced. The agent must infer that this is the detail-fetch counterpart to the list tool.

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