get_event

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does so admirably. It reveals the internal behavior: re-querying the seed agency, sweeping all supported agencies in parallel within ±10 minutes and ~3°, and returning None when the seed cannot be found. This is unusually specific and useful.

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 compact and well-organized: a one-sentence purpose with format, a behavioral paragraph explaining the matching logic, and a usage paragraph with an example. No sentence is filler; each adds distinct value.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the return value shape does not need elaboration. The description covers the input format, the search behavior, the failure condition, and the relationship to find_events. This is complete enough for reliable invocation.

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?

The schema only defines canonical_id as a string with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It fully does: it specifies the exact 'AGENCY:event_id' format, gives the example 'USGS:us6000sze1', and tells the agent to source the value from find_events. This removes all ambiguity about the required parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch one reconciled event by canonical_id'. It also distinguishes itself from find_events by positioning get_event as the drill-down counterpart that provides a 'full cross-agency view'. This clearly separates it from the sibling list/comparison tools.

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?

It explicitly instructs the agent to use canonical_ids from find_events, provides a concrete example, and states that this tool is for drilling into a single event. It does not enumerate exclusions or compare against alternatives like compare_sources, but the guidance is clear enough for correct selection.

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