get_event_orchestration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description only needs to add minimal context. It states 'Get details' which aligns, but doesn't disclose additional behavior like potential 404 errors or authorization needs.

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 very concise: two short sentences in the body plus structured Args/Returns. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no fluff.

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 get-by-ID tool with good annotations and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It could mention that the orchestration_id must exist, but the essential info is present.

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 parameter 'orchestration_id' has 0% schema description coverage, but the description's Args section adds 'The ID of the event orchestration to retrieve', providing essential meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states 'Get details for a specific event orchestration', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_event_orchestrations and get_event_orchestration_router.

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. With many sibling get/list tools, the absence of contextual clues (e.g., requiring orchestration_id from list) is a gap.

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