eventbroker_get_event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond the annotations other than restating the GET path (which duplicates the annotation title) – no note on not-found behavior, error semantics, or payload shape.

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 short front-loaded sentences with the verb and resource first. The trailing raw HTTP path line is redundant with the annotation title and adds little for an agent, but overall there is no bloat.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotations this is close to sufficient, but there is no output schema and the description says nothing about what 'details' are returned or what happens on an unknown id, leaving a modest gap for an agent planning the call.

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?

A single 'id' parameter with 100% schema description coverage already documenting it as a UUID path parameter. The description adds no format or sourcing hints beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get Event by id', 'Retrieve the details of a specified Event'), which is clearly distinct from the sibling list tool eventbroker_get_events and from eventbroker_get_event_topic. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 guidance on when to use this single-fetch tool versus list tools like eventbroker_get_events or adjacent lookups such as eventbroker_get_event_topic and eventbroker_get_subscription. The only implicit cue is the required id, with no exclusions or prerequisites.

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