get_event_overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable behavioral details: the output structure (age-group divisions, flights, ID, tier, team count), the argument source (from find_events), and an example. No contradictions.

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 concise with 4 sentences plus an args block. It is well-structured, front-loads the purpose, and includes a useful example. No unnecessary words.

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 tool has one parameter, an output schema exists, and annotations are present, the description provides a high-level overview of the return structure and usage context. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully describes the only parameter: 'event_id: Numeric event ID from find_events (e.g. 3933).' This adds type, source, and an example, going beyond the schema.

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 purpose: 'Get the divisions and flights for an event.' It specifies what is returned (age-group divisions, flights, flight ID, flight tier, team count) and how it fits with sibling tools (use flight ID with other tools). This provides a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from siblings by linking to dependent 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?

The description implies usage by stating 'Use the flight ID with ...' indicating this tool is a prerequisite for other tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare alternatives among siblings. Clear context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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