get_event

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of conveying behavioral traits. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which provides some transparency. However, it does not mention potential errors (e.g., event not found), authentication requirements, or response format specifics beyond what the output schema already defines. It is minimally adequate for a simple getter.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and immediately communicates the tool's purpose. It earns a perfect score for conciseness and structure.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, output schema exists), and the description clearly indicates the action and scope ('full details' vs. summary). While it does not explicitly discuss alternatives, the phrase 'full details' provides enough context for selection among siblings. Combined with the output schema, the description is mostly complete for 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 input schema already fully describes 'event_id' as 'The event ID to retrieve' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond that, merely restating 'by its ID'. With complete schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get full details for a specific event by its ID' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('event'), and the phrase 'full details' distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_event_summary' which likely returns a summary. This clearly states what the tool does.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_event_summary', 'get_events', or 'get_events_by_ids'. There is no mention of prerequisites or appropriate contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and schema.

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