get_event_details

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and does not mention that the operation is read-only, what happens if the event ID is invalid or not found, or any error behavior. While the name implies a read operation, the description lacks explicit transparency about side effects (or lack thereof).

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, concise sentence with zero filler. It front-loads the action and resource, making it instantly parseable. There is no wasted text.

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 required parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is sufficient to convey the tool's purpose. It does not explain return format, but the absence of an output schema lowers the expectation. Overall, the description covers what is needed for this simple tool.

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 schema already fully describes the single parameter 'eventId' as 'Unique event ID' (100% coverage). The description does not add any additional meaning or usage details beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('detailed information about a specific event') with the criterion 'by ID'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_events (which lists events) and get_market_details (which focuses on markets).

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 the appropriate use case: when you have a specific event ID and need detailed information. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'use this instead of get_events', but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer when to invoke it. No exclusions are mentioned, but the guidance is adequate.

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