avanan_get_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get' clearly indicates a read-only retrieval operation, and 'full details' communicates the expected scope of the return. However, it does not mention response structure, potential errors, or any permissions needed, which is acceptable but not rich for a simple get-by-ID 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?

The description is a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action, resource, and lookup key, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 low-complexity tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. 'Full details' conveys what the caller should expect as a return. It could be more explicit about where the event ID originates (e.g., from avanan_query_events), but that is reasonably inferable from the sibling tool names.

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%, and the schema already describes eventId as 'Avanan event ID.' The description repeats this concept ('by its Avanan event ID') without adding format, constraints, or source guidance. This matches the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific action ('Get full details'), a clear resource ('one security event'), and the lookup key ('Avanan event ID'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like avanan_query_events, which imply searching or listing events rather than retrieving a single event by ID.

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 the tool should be used when you already have a specific Avanan event ID and need full details, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as avanan_query_events for searching. The usage context is inferable but not explicit.

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