Get birth event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — results are permission-scoped to what the current user may access — but says nothing about not-found behavior, what the 'evidence' payload contains, or whether omission is silent.

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 tight sentence with no padding, and the core action is front-loaded. It is efficient but borders on under-specified rather than maximally useful.

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 carries full responsibility for describing the return shape, yet 'and evidence' is undefined — an agent cannot know what fields come back or how evidence is structured. Combined with 0% parameter coverage and no failure-mode guidance, the definition is too thin for a retrieval tool that returns a composite object.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden for both parameters. It never mentions event_id (the required key) or explains the optional farm_id — an agent cannot tell from the text whether farm_id is a scope filter, a default context, or required when the event belongs to multiple farms.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') with a specific resource ('a saved birth event and evidence'), which is enough to distinguish it from list_birth_events and from the preview_/confirm_ pair. It stops short of explicitly differentiating it from get_birth_history_evidence or get_birth_source_evidence, so it is clear but not fully disambiguated among siblings.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_birth_events, preview_birth_event, or the other birth-evidence tools. The only usage-ish signal is 'the current user may access', which gestures at access scoping without stating any prerequisite or exclusion.

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