Get Event Metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that it returns counts, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, potential errors (e.g., unknown event id), or any caching/rate-limit behavior. Name suggests 'get' implies read, but description provides no explicit safety or side-effect context.

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 immediately states the tool's purpose and the meaning of the metric parameter. No filler or redundancy; every word earns its place.

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 count retrieval with two parameters and a clear enum, the description is nearly sufficient, but missing details like return format (just a number or JSON) and behavior for invalid inputs. Given no output schema and no annotations, a bit more context would make it more complete, but the core functionality is covered.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It effectively explains the 'metric' parameter by enumerating its allowed values (tweets, comments, tags) and clarifies that it returns a count. The 'id' parameter is implied as event id from the tool name, but not explicitly described, leaving some ambiguity.

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 the tool's function: retrieving event metadata specifically counts of tweets, comments, or tags. This is a specific verb+resource and differentiates from siblings like get_event (full event details) or get_comments_by_id (actual comments) by focusing on metadata counts.

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 description implies use when you need counts of tweets/comments/tags for an event, and the metric parameter exposes the choices. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., fetching comments directly) or provide any exclusions, so guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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