evite_get_event

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the HTTP GET method and response scope, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as auth needs, rate limits, or response shape details. No contradiction with annotations.

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 containing the verb, resource, endpoint, and scope with no filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simple read-only nature.

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 read-only GET with one required parameter, the description plus the rich parameter schema and readOnlyHint give an agent enough to invoke it correctly. Since there is no output schema, exact return fields are only summarized ('event, settings, location, and more'), so a 5 would require more explicit return documentation.

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 already have detailed descriptions—especially view, which explains compact/full behavior and the rationale for not doing field projection. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Get') and precise resource ('single Evite event detail'), and includes the REST path plus content categories ('event, settings, location, and more'). This clearly distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like evite_list_events.

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?

'Get a single...detail' clearly positions this as the one-event detail lookup versus evite_list_events for listing events. The event_id parameter description reinforces the workflow by pointing to evite_list_events as the source of IDs. However, alternatives are not named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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