Get event details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful substance by naming the returned fields (summary, concepts, location) and the optional article inclusion, but says nothing about payload size, language fallback, or cost of pulling articles.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and the optional add-on second, with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though it is arguably too thin given the seven parameters it governs.

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's list of returned fields is genuinely valuable and covers the main shape of the response. However it leaves the two undocumented parameters (notably body_chars and its -1 sentinel) and any language behaviour unaddressed, which is thin for a seven-parameter 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 coverage is 71% and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. Two parameters are undocumented even in the schema — body_chars (whose minimum of -1 is unexplained and whose effect on the 'summary' is unstated) and result_lang — so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Details for one event') and enumerates the payload (summary, concepts, location, plus optional articles), which separates it from newsapi_search_events at a glance. It does not explicitly name a sibling, 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative; the reader must infer from 'one event' that this follows a search and takes an event_uri. 'Optionally its top articles' hints at the articles_count parameter but is not framed as guidance.

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