Get event with tickets, location, leaders and attachments

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description's job is to add payload context — and it does, spelling out that ticket types include issued/taken/spaces-left/cost and that related entities are side-loaded rather than requiring extra calls. It does not mention the redaction behavior of include_contact_details, a minor gap.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the resource and then enumerates the payload. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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 must convey the return shape, and it does so adequately: location, per-ticket-type availability counters and cost, leaders, attachments, all side-loaded. It stops short of noting the contact-detail unredaction toggle, which is the one behavior an agent might need to know before calling.

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 coverage is 100% with only 2 parameters, so the schema already documents both event_id and include_contact_details with its redaction semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond implying leaders/tickets are returned, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 resource (one event) and enumerates the side-loaded payload (location, ticket types with availability, leaders, attachments), which clearly separates it from the list_* siblings. It lacks an explicit verb but the scope ('one event') makes the single-record intent 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?

Usage is only implied: 'side-loaded in a single call' hints that this is preferable to fanning out across get_location/get_ticket/list_leaders, but the description never states when to use it versus those siblings or any exclusions. An agent can infer retrieval-by-id usage but gets no explicit routing guidance.

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