Get event

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real context beyond them: the host's view of the page, guests grouped per RSVP status, questionnaire questions included, and times expressed in the event's own time zone. It does not address error behavior for an inaccessible or missing event.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the payload and followed by return scope, time zone, and permission notes. The opening field enumeration overlaps somewhat with the 'as its page shows it to the host' sentence, a small redundancy but not bloat.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by listing the fields, guest grouping, and questionnaire content. Time-zone and permission context round it out; only failure modes for a bad event_id are unstated.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains that event_id comes from list_events. The description body adds no further semantics about the identifier, so the baseline 3 for schema-covered parameters applies.

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 a specific verb (get) and resource (one event) and enumerates the payload the agent will receive: title, description, times, location, RSVP deadline, guest limit, approval/waitlist settings, link. It separates itself from list_events by stating it returns one event and from the write siblings by noting they require an event the account hosts.

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?

It gives an explicit usability boundary ('Works for any event the account can open') and contrasts with the write tools, which need a hosted event. It does not explicitly tell the agent to call list_events first to obtain the id, though the schema parameter note does.

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