Get Event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds context that events are 'read-only records generated automatically by the Gorgias system,' which reinforces the safety profile. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as response format, error handling, or any rate limits, so it adds only modest value beyond the annotations.

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, zero wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the HTTP method and purpose; the second adds essential context about event record semantics. Perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 single-parameter read-only tool, the description is adequately complete. It explains the tool's purpose and the nature of the resource (system-generated events). The absence of an output schema means return format isn't documented, but for such a simple retrieval operation, this is not a critical gap.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'id' parameter with a clear description ('The unique ID of the event to retrieve'). The description's mention of 'unique ID' is redundant and does not add syntax, format, or additional meaning beyond the schema, so it earns the baseline score.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('single event by its unique ID'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like gorgias_list_events and other get_* tools. The HTTP method and endpoint prefix further clarify the exact operation.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you have a specific event ID and need that single event. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use list_events for multiple events'), but the singular scope and ID requirement provide clear context for selection.

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