get_event_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it is a batch drill-down returning full detail rather than summaries, but says nothing about behavior on invalid or foreign-account ARNs, partial failures, or result ordering.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a short usage rule, an Args block, and two illustrative prompts — all relevant. The example prompts are somewhat redundant with the usage sentence, but each is short and adds concrete invocation 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?

A one-parameter read tool with full annotations and an existing output schema needs little more than purpose, source of ARNs, and drill-down guidance, all of which are present. Return-value shape is correctly left to the output schema.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning; it does state that event_arns accepts "one or more event ARNs, as returned by the listing tools," establishing multiplicity and the source of valid values. It still gives no literal ARN format or example value to copy, leaving the agent to infer shape from a prompt fragment.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get the full detail of specific AWS health events by ARN") and contrasts it with the listing tools that surface the events. It never names an actual sibling such as get_service_events or get_completed_events, so the differentiation is by category rather than by named alternative.

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?

"Use this to drill into events surfaced by the listing tools, instead of pulling every description for every event" gives a clear when-to-use and an implicit when-not (don't re-fetch details you don't need), and the example prompts reinforce the drill-down workflow. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are stated beyond that.

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