event_get_protocol

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description goes further by disclosing non-obvious behavior: accounts default to 20 (or 'all'), ordered oldest first, and Entities are returned only 'when its refs name Entities'. These conditional and defaulting behaviors are exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the primary return shape before the conditional Entity detail and the sibling routing. Nothing is wasted, though the packing of return-shape, defaults, ordering, and routing into one sentence makes it slightly hard to scan.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by specifying the payload shape, the Accounts default/ordering, and the Entity object shape. Error behavior and pagination details are not covered, but for this tool the coverage is close to complete.

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 coverage is 50%: eventId is documented, but the accounts parameter has no schema description. The tool description compensates by explaining the default (20) and the 'all' sentinel value, plus the ordering semantics, which is real added meaning beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read one Event') and enumerates the exact return payload ({event, accounts, entities?}), so an agent knows precisely what comes back. It also explicitly separates itself from event_get_revisions, naming the sibling that handles history.

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 closing clause 'History is read with event_get_revisions' routes the agent to the correct alternative for the adjacent use case, which is genuinely useful guidance. It stops short of a full when/when-not statement for the other siblings, but the key disambiguation is present.

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