Retrieve AddEvent Event

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds return format ('full event object as JSON') and a specific error-handling behavior ('Error: Not found...' on 404). This meaningfully extends the annotation context, though it does not cover potential auth or rate-limit details.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Examples, Error Handling) and every sentence contributes new information. It is brief yet comprehensive, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence for immediate recognition.

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 single-entity retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, this description covers all essential aspects: what it retrieves, how to pass the parameter, what the return value looks like, and error behavior. It also points to the appropriate sibling for cases where the ID is unknown, fully equipping the agent to act correctly.

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 input schema already fully describes event_id with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving a concrete example mapping user language ('Show me the details for event evt_abc123') to the parameter value, which helps the agent extract the argument from natural language.

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 opens with 'Retrieves a single event by its event_id', which clearly states the exact verb, resource, and identifier used. It also distinguishes itself from addevent_search_events by explicitly noting that this tool requires an event_id, making the purpose unmistakably specific.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Don't use when: you don't have the event_id yet (use addevent_search_events first)'. This names the alternative tool and tells the agent exactly when to avoid this tool, going beyond mere context.

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