get_event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the list of returned fields, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about behavior on a missing/invalid handle or any output/pagination characteristics.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and closed with the usage cue; no filler or redundancy.

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 read-only single-param tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is largely sufficient, especially since it lists the return fields despite there being no output schema. Only edge-case behavior on invalid handles is unaddressed.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents 'event' with an example ('E0001'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional syntax or format guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Get an event') and enumerates the returned fields (type, date, place handle, description, citation count, attributes), so the agent knows exactly what this retrieves. It is clearly distinguishable from list_event_types, update_event, and query_objects, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the generic get_object sibling.

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?

'Use to inspect an event before citing or editing it' gives concrete workflow context that tells the agent when this tool is appropriate (a pre-read for cite/edit flows). It stops short of naming alternatives or stating exclusions, so it is clear context without routing rules.

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