get_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds the behavioral hint that the response includes 'full evidence,' but does not disclose error handling, authentication, or other potential side effects. For a simple read operation this is minimal but not absent.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no unnecessary words or repetition. It is perfectly concise.

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 get-by-id tool, the description covers the core purpose and hints at the return value ('with full evidence'). Without an output schema, the exact nature of 'full evidence' is vague, but the tool is simple enough that this is mostly adequate.

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 coverage is 100% (event_id is described as 'Event id.'), so the description does not need to add parameter details. However, it also does not provide any additional context about the parameter beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'a single event by id' and adds 'with full evidence' to distinguish it from list_events or other search tools. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 usage context is implied (fetch a specific event by its id), but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus list_events or other alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites.

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