Get a ChurchTools event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that by explaining the semantics of the isValid field ('false for a superseded or declined assignment') and clarifying that the returned id is the eventServiceId consumed by the service tools. It does not cover auth needs or limits, but that is less critical for a read tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the field list is dense but each item earns its place. It is compact and readable, though the parenthetical about eventServiceId slightly interrupts the enumeration flow.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden. It documents the service-assignment fields well but leaves 'the whole event' undefined — the event's own fields (title, dates, calendar) are never described — and it does not state prerequisites or the required eventId. Adequate but with clear gaps for a get-by-id 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single eventId parameter (documented as 'The event's id'), so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description does not add syntax or constraints for eventId. Per the high-coverage rule, baseline 3 is correct.

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 action and resource ('Shows the whole event with each service assignment') and enumerates the payload fields, so an agent knows it retrieves a single event by id along with its service assignments. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like ct_list_events or ct_get_appointment, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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, no mention that eventId is required, and no routing to alternatives such as ct_list_events for enumeration or ct_get_appointment for appointment data. The only implicit signal is the singular 'the whole event', which suggests single-entity retrieval.

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