get_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description must cover behavioral traits. It lists the returned data but omits details like idempotency, error handling (e.g., invalid event_id), or any mutation effects. The lack of a read-only hint or status code description leaves some ambiguity, but the read nature is implicit.

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 two concise sentences with no redundant or extraneous information. Front-loaded with the key purpose, it efficiently communicates the tool's function and usage context.

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 (one required parameter) and the absence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it enumerates all major return fields, specifies the input data source, and positions the tool within a workflow. Minor omissions include no mention of error responses or authentication needs, but these are not critical for a contextually adequate description.

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 covers the single parameter with a description (event_id: 'Event UUID (from list_events)'). The description reiterates that the event id comes from list_events, which is helpful context but does not add significant new semantics beyond the schema's full coverage (100%).

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 that the tool retrieves 'full detail for a single event' and lists specific data fields (teams, start time, status, etc.), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_events (listing) and get_event_odds (odds). The phrasing 'model-builder's pre-game context endpoint' further defines its unique role.

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 direct guidance: 'Use an event id from list_events.' This tells the agent the required input source and implies a prerequisite call. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear for a single-event detail retrieval scenario.

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