folio_get_event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the workflow framing; it says nothing about whether attachments come back inline, whether the call fails for an unknown event_id, or any auth/scope requirements implied by openWorldHint.

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?

A single short sentence with the workflow precondition front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though arguably under-sized for the gaps it leaves.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotations and no output schema, the essentials are present, but the description omits what the caller gets back (event data vs. attachment list) and how to supply event_id. Adequate rather than complete.

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 single parameter event_id is undocumented in the schema, so the description carries the burden. It names the resource being read but never mentions the identifier, its format, or where an agent obtains it, leaving the caller to infer the mapping.

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 ("Les" / read) and resource ("kjøp/hendelse" – purchase/event, plus its existing attachments), which an agent can distinguish from write-side siblings like folio_attach_invoice and folio_prepare_invoice_assignment. It does not explicitly contrast with folio_read_invoice or folio_read_attachment, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

"før fakturatilknytning" (before invoice assignment) gives a concrete workflow cue for when this tool belongs in the sequence. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, but the temporal placement relative to the invoice-matching tools is clear.

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