pmus_get_event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is fully covered by structured metadata. The description adds useful payload context ('all of its markets, rules excerpt, tags, and quotes') but does not disclose behaviors such as handling of invalid slugs, truncation of the rules excerpt, or absence of data.

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, front-loaded sentence conveys the verb, resource, and payload content without filler. Every word contributes to the agent's ability to select the tool, and the payload list is compact but informative.

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?

With a rich annotation set and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values in depth. It adequately identifies the resource and key data included, though a brief note about the meaning/usage of description_chars would make it fully complete.

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 only 50%: slug_or_id is documented in the schema, but description_chars has no description there. The tool description does not clarify how description_chars interacts with the returned data, even though 'rules excerpt' hints at a text-length control. The description therefore fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('one event'), and enumerates the payload: markets, rules excerpt, tags, and quotes. This distinguishes it from siblings like pmus_get_market (a single market), pmus_list_events (plural), and pmus_get_order_book (market depth).

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 right context: use this when you need a single event's full detail set (markets, rules, tags, quotes). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives such as pmus_get_market or pmus_list_events, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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