Get B2match participant

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

Adds a genuinely non-obvious trait not present in the annotations: this fetch does not send B2match's profile-view tracking mutation, which materially affects side effects a caller might assume. Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and "public profile" signals field scoping, but error behavior (unknown participant_id) and rate limits are unstated.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core purpose and its unique behavioral trait front-loaded before the sibling routing guidance.

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 only two well-documented required params, no nested objects, and full annotation coverage, the definition is nearly complete; "full public profile" conveys the return shape adequately in the absence of an output schema. Minor gap: no note on what happens when the participant is not found or not visible to the caller.

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 100% — both `event` (URL/slug/euid/numeric id) and `participant_id` (source tools) are fully documented in the schema. The description only reinforces where ids come from, adding little beyond the existing parameter docs, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: "Fetch one participant's full public profile", with an explicit scope qualifier (public profile only) and a distinguishing behavioral note about the tracking mutation. An agent can tell this apart from list_participants and my_participation without opening a schema.

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?

Names two alternatives and the exact condition that selects each: list_participants for search/id discovery, my_participation for the caller's own status. That covers the realistic ambiguity for this tool set.

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