get_detailed_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states what is fetched (events with org names and competition details), but does not mention whether results are paginated, how matching is performed, any rate limits, response structure, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a potentially list-returning tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every phrase earns its place: 'Fetch events' states the core action, and the modifiers 'matched organization names and competition details' specify the enrichment. This is appropriately sized for a simple read operation.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too sparse to be complete. It doesn't explain return value shape, pagination, filtering behavior beyond parameter defaults, or how this endpoint relates to the sibling event tools. For a tool with five parameters and multiple nearby alternatives, more context is needed.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it does not clarify how 'st', 'type', 'limit', 'locale', or 'version' affect the enriched event output. The schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('events'), and adds that it includes 'matched organization names and competition details', which distinguishes it from a plain event fetcher. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_events or get_highlighted_events, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_events or get_competitions. It gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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