get_event_details

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden: it discloses the useful non-obvious trait that results include the program's other upcoming dates, not just the single event. It says nothing about safety, permissions, or whether a missing id errors versus returns empty — though the output schema covers the return shape.

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 sentence with the scope statement first and the payload enumeration second; no filler, no redundancy with the schema.

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 one-parameter detail getter with a fully documented schema and an output schema, the definition covers purpose and payload adequately. The only real gap is the absence of routing guidance against the seven sibling listing tools.

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 coverage is 100% and the single event_id parameter is already documented in detail, including the bare-series-id fallback to the next occurrence. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

"Full details for one occurrence" names a concrete verb-plus-resource and then enumerates the payload (description text, links, venue, the program's other upcoming dates), which separates it from list-oriented siblings like get_events. It stops short of naming an alternative tool, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 singular framing ("one occurrence") implies you call this after obtaining an id from a listing tool, but there is no sentence stating when to prefer it over get_events or search_events, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is inferable, not stated.

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