vibo_get_event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating the returned payload fields, which matters since there is no output schema; it still does not mention permission requirements or failure modes.

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, zero filler, with the primary purpose and return list front-loaded and the alternative-tool pointer placed last.

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 tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-field detail and the sibling routing hint. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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 100% and the single parameter eventId is fully documented in the schema ('the _id from vibo_list_events'). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get full details for one event') and enumerates exactly what is returned: title, date/timezone, location, role, lock status, playlist size, and progress. It also distinguishes itself from vibo_list_sections, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without opening schemas.

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 context is clear (fetch full detail for a single known event) and it routes the agent to vibo_list_sections for timeline data. However it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, e.g. that vibo_list_events should be used first to obtain the eventId.

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