Get event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the underlying endpoint (GET /event/{event_id}/), and stays silent on redaction behavior, which is handled in the schema instead.

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 compact sentence front-loads the core purpose and then lists the payload areas, with the endpoint appended. There is no filler, though the endpoint mention is of marginal value to an agent.

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 usefully enumerates what comes back, which is the right thing to compensate for. It still omits error/not-found behavior and any hint that some fields may be redacted by default, leaving a small gap for a read tool.

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%, including a thorough explanation of include_contact_details and its redaction default, so the schema carries parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., what event_id accepts, or that contact details are gated), so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('One event in full') and enumerates the returned content areas (description, booking info, organisation, venue, tags, gallery, seat-view URL), making the scope concrete. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_performance or list_events, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implied rather than stated: a single-event-by-ID fetch is inferable from 'One event in full' and the required event_id. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of list_events, and no note on behavior when the ID is unknown.

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