Get event page

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description then adds real value the annotations cannot: it discloses the return payload (settings, logic with block ids, list revision) and what detailed=true changes. What it does not do is explain which parameter combination is required for a valid call, even though every parameter is optional.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the returned data before the page-type scope and the detailed flag. No filler, no restatement of the title. Every sentence carries new information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does a reasonable job of covering the return shape. With six optional parameters and zero required ones, the main residual gap is the absence of an explicit statement about which IDs must be combined for each page type and what happens on an invalid combination. Adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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 coverage is 83%, so baseline is 3, and the description earns an increment: the `detailed` parameter has no schema description, and the text explains that it adds the full Event IR. It also clarifies that returned logic carries block ids, which matters for follow-up editing calls. It does not spell out the ID combinations (mapId+eventId+pageIndex vs troopId+pageIndex vs commonEventId) beyond the parenthetical hints already in 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 names the resource (event page) and enumerates what comes back: page settings, readable logic with block ids, and the list revision. It also scopes the tool to map event pages, common events, and troop pages. It stops short of naming siblings such as get_event_page_native or get_event_logic, so the agent gets no explicit differentiation from those overlapping readers.

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?

"Works for map event pages, common events and troop pages" implies which identifier set to use in each case, which is genuine usage context. There is no explicit when-to-use versus get_event_page_native or get_event_logic, and no guidance on when to pick detailed=true instead of a separate IR tool. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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