get_event_entries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully states that EVENTOR_USERNAME and EVENTOR_PASSWORD are required, adding auth context beyond the schema, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only (though 'Get' implies it), rate limits, pagination, or error behavior.

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?

The description is two short sentences that are front-loaded with the primary action and returned fields, followed by the auth requirement. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple read tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose and auth requirements. However, it leaves a clear gap in parameter semantics by not explaining event_id, which is required given the 0% schema coverage for that parameter.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for event_id, so the description must compensate. It only says 'for a specific event', which adds little beyond the schema's title 'Event Id' and does not explain format, source, or constraints for the 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all entries for a specific event'), and lists returned fields, making the purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like get_event_classes or get_entry_changes, but the resource is distinct enough that an agent can infer the difference.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_entry_changes or get_event_classes. The only guideline provided is the authentication requirement, which is a prerequisite rather than usage context.

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