Get OCSF event class

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds that it returns the complete class definition including all attributes, types, and constraints, and explains what can be validated. It doesn't cover error cases, but for a read-only lookup this is relevant context beyond annotations.

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?

The description is well-structured: a concise opening sentence, a bulleted list of use cases, and a closing summary. Every sentence adds value, and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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 simple lookup tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and return value (complete class definition). It is sufficient for an agent to pick and use the tool correctly.

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 both name and version having examples. The description does not add significant new parameter meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states 'Get the complete definition of a specific OCSF event class' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ocsf_get_classes and ocsf_get_object by focusing on a single class and its full schema.

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 'Use this tool to' list provides four concrete use cases (understand schema, see required vs optional fields, discover nested objects, validate mapping). It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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