Get event

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description's value is in disclosing the return shape and the privacy behavior: promoter contact details are withheld by default and surfaced only on request. That default-redaction behavior is a genuinely useful trait beyond the annotations, though it stops short of describing error behavior for a missing/invalid 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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the resource and then enumerates the payload; every clause earns its place and nothing is padded or repeated.

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 correctly takes on the burden of describing what comes back (tickets, promoters, stages) and the default redaction behavior, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around error handling for an unknown event_id and whether the caller needs specific permissions.

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 both parameters, including the UUID pattern and the fact that include_contact_details also un-redacts free text. The description's 'contact details only on request' is a less precise restatement of that, adding no syntax or semantic detail the schema lacks.

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 (a single event) and enumerates its sub-parts: tickets with price/places booked/remaining, promoters with names and roles, and stages. That is far more informative than a bare 'get event' and implicitly contrasts with the list-oriented siblings, though it never explicitly frames itself as the fetch-by-ID counterpart to list_events.

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?

The singular 'One event' implies this is for a single-record lookup versus list_events, and 'contact details only on request' hints at when to set the flag, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no named alternative, and no statement of prerequisites (e.g. that event_id must come from list_events).

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