Get Event By Partner External Id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond those: the call is a resolution/translation step and the payload includes the mapped market sides, not just the event. It does not say what happens when the external ID is unknown, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and the input, then stating the output. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully summarizes the return shape (internal event plus mapped market sides), which is the key thing an agent needs. The remaining gap is failure behavior for an unresolvable partner ID or an unrecognized partner slug, minor for a two-parameter read-only lookup.

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% and both parameters (externalId, partnerKey) are documented with examples in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's 'e.g. OpticOdds fixture ID' merely restates the schema's own example and adds no new semantics about format or constraints.

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 ('Resolve') and specific resource ('a partner external event ID ... to the internal event and its mapped market sides'), and the word 'partner external' distinguishes it from siblings get_event_by_id and get_event_by_slug, which take internal identifiers. An agent can pick the right tool without opening the 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the 'partner external event ID' framing tells the agent to use this when it holds a third-party ID instead of an internal one, but there is no explicit when-not clause and no sibling is named as the alternative for internal IDs. Adequate but leaves the routing inference to the agent.

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