get_event_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns full event details including fields, bus, cancellability, and usage example code, which helps an agent anticipate the response. It is a read-style operation, and there are no side-effect or safety concerns suggested.

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?

A single concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then lists the detail categories. No filler or redundant wording.

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 one-parameter read tool, the schema covers the input and the description covers the output categories sufficiently. The only real gap is the lack of explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over search_events, but the tool's purpose is still inferable.

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 already fully documents the only parameter (name) with type and examples, so the description does not need to add much. The description's mention of 'specific event' aligns with the name parameter but does not add new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 uses a clear verb (Get), a specific resource (a specific event), and enumerates the detail categories (fields, bus, cancellability, usage example). It is distinguishable from search_events by emphasizing full details rather than searching, but it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool.

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 implies when the tool should be used: when full details of a known event are needed. It does not provide explicit when-to-use vs. search_events or other alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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