get_event

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors. It implies a read operation ('get'), but does not explicitly confirm idempotency, side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. Since it's a simple retrieval, a score of 2 is given for minimal disclosure.

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: a one-line summary followed by an Args section with clear parameter definitions. Every sentence is valuable, and the structure front-loads the 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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose and parameters but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency. For a simple tool, it is minimally complete but could be improved with contrasts to siblings.

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 description provides examples for both parameters (event_id: 'evt-abc123', url: 'https://lu.ma/myevent' or 'myevent'), which adds meaning beyond the schema's generic 'anyOf string or null'. However, it does not clarify that at least one parameter should be provided, nor the behavior if both are given.

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 clearly states 'Get full details for a single Luma event', specifying a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_events' which lists multiple events, and 'export_event_ics' which is for exporting to ICS format.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explain that this tool is for retrieving a single event by ID or URL, while search_events is for discovering events. Missing context on parameter choice or fallback behavior.

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