get_event_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that athlete_id and api_key fall back to .env values, and 'Get' implies a read operation, but it does not describe not-found behavior, error cases, or confirm that no modifications occur.

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 first sentence is a clear, front-loaded summary, and the Args block is organized without fluff. It is slightly redundant with the schema but each line adds some value, especially the environment-variable fallback notes.

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 get-by-id tool with an output schema, the key call parameters are covered. However, the absence of usage differentiation and behavioral caveats (e.g., 404/error handling) leaves the description slightly incomplete for an agent choosing among many sibling tools.

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 0%, and the description compensates for all three parameters: event_id is identified as the Intervals.icu event ID, while athlete_id and api_key receive meaningful optionality and .env fallback semantics not present in the schema.

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 opening sentence specifies the verb ('Get'), the resource ('event'), and the scope ('specific event') from Intervals.icu. It distinguishes from list-like siblings such as get_events, but it does not explicitly name an alternative or contrast itself.

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?

There is no guidance about when to prefer this tool over get_events or other event tools, and no mention that the caller must already have an event_id. The usage context is only implied by the word 'specific'.

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