vibo_get_event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what fields are returned, but it does not disclose additional behaviors such as error cases, authentication requirements, or response format. Given the annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded with concrete field details, and the sibling pointer is compact and useful.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the agent needs: what the tool does, what fields to expect, and which sibling to use for related data. Nothing essential is missing.

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 the eventId parameter already explains it is the _id from vibo_list_events. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names the resource ('one event') and the specific verb ('Get full details'), then enumerates exactly what is returned: title, date/timezone, location, role, lock status, playlist size, and progress. This clearly distinguishes it from vibo_list_events (plural listing) and other sibling tools.

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 last sentence gives a direct routing hint: use vibo_list_sections when the timeline is needed, implying vibo_get_event does not provide the timeline. It does not exhaustively discuss when to prefer this over all siblings, but for its scope the guidance is clear and actionable.

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