Get event

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the purpose, such as what 'detail' includes, error handling, or prerequisites. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a neutral score is appropriate—there is no contradiction, but no extra transparency either.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'One scheduled event in detail.' Every word contributes meaning, with no filler. It is extremely concise while still conveying the core functionality.

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 retrieval tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context: it fetches one scheduled event with detail. It does not explain what 'detail' encompasses, but the purpose is clear. Given the tool's simplicity and the schema's completeness, this is sufficient, though a bit more about return contents could slightly enhance it.

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%, with both parameters ('event' and 'guild') having descriptions. The tool description adds nothing about parameters. Per the rubric baseline, when the schema fully documents parameters, a 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 'One scheduled event in detail' clearly states the action (get), the resource (scheduled event), and the scope (one, in detail). It distinguishes this tool from list_events (which lists events) and get_event_attendees (which fetches attendees), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage: you need a single event's detailed information. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use list_events for a summary'). Given the obvious sibling differentiation and straightforward nature, the usage context is clear enough to guide selection, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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