app_events_get_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no auth/permission requirements, no error behavior, no note about what the include/fields expansion changes. A bare endpoint path adds zero behavioral context for a tool that mutates nothing but still requires scoping knowledge.

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?

Extremely short, but that brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness, and the parenthetical repetition of the exact same string is pure waste. No front-loaded semantic content for an agent to latch onto.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, a bare endpoint path is completely inadequate. There is no indication of what is returned, how relationships are expanded, or any prerequisite, so the definition is not self-sufficient.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters (id, include, fields_appEvents, limit_localizations, fields_appEventLocalizations). The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 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 is a raw HTTP path ("GET /v1/appEvents/{id}") duplicated in parentheses. It technically conveys a read on a single app event, but it merely restates the tool name in URL form rather than stating a purpose in prose, so it sits at the tautology threshold.

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?

No usage context whatsoever: no when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no reference to the sibling list/relationship tools (e.g. apps_app_events_get_to_many_relationship) that an agent must choose between. Nothing is misleading, but nothing guides selection either.

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