eb_event_details

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the authentication behavior (bearer token by default, falling back to browser bridge when no token is configured). It also clarifies the tool's scope to 'public' events, adding meaningful context beyond what annotations provide.

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 only two sentences, with the first sentence front-loading the primary purpose and the second providing auth context and an alternative tool. Every clause 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 tool with only two parameters, no output schema, and supportive annotations, the description covers batch behavior, auth fallback, and alternative tool usage. It does not detail return format, but the expand parameter in the schema partially implies the response scope, making this sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 provides 100% coverage for both parameters (event_ids and expand) with descriptions. The tool's description does not add parameter-specific detail beyond 'by id,' but it does reinforce that this is a batch operation, aligning with the event_ids array. This meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 begins with 'Batch-fetch public event details by id,' using a specific verb (batch-fetch), resource (public event details), and input (id). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly directing ticket-class needs to eb_ticket_classes.

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 clear context: it is for batch-fetching public event details and is the preferred alternative when ticket-class detail is needed, naming eb_ticket_classes. It also explains the auth fallback (bearer token vs browser bridge), but does not explicitly contrast with the single-event sibling eb_event.

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