get_event_orchestration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe read behavior. The description's 'Get details' aligns with this, but it adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., error handling, rate limits). Since annotations carry the transparency burden, a 3 is appropriate for not contradicting and providing basic alignment.

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 extremely concise with a clear structure: one sentence for purpose, followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is necessary, and 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 simplicity (1 parameter, output schema present), the description is minimally adequate. However, the context includes many sibling tools for orchestration retrieval, and this description does not clarify when to use this specific variant, reducing completeness.

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 only parameter, orchestration_id, has 0% schema description coverage. The description's 'The ID of the event orchestration to retrieve' merely restates the parameter name without adding format, source, or validation rules. With no compensation for low coverage, the parameter semantics are minimal.

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 explicitly states 'Get details for a specific event orchestration,' conveying verb (Get) and resource (event orchestration) clearly. However, it fails to differentiate from sibling tools like get_event_orchestration_global or get_event_orchestration_router, which retrieve similar but distinct orchestration types.

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 when you have an orchestration_id, but it provides no guidance on when not to use this tool or when to use alternative orchestration retrieval tools. Sibling tools cover different orchestration scopes, yet no exclusions or recommendations are given.

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