get_event

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already discloses safety, and the description does not contradict it. It adds some behavioral context by noting the tool can also fetch planned workouts and that athlete_id defaults to '0', but otherwise does not reveal additional behavioral traits such as auth requirements or rate limits. Given the annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes only essential usage guidance and an alternative. Every sentence contributes value, and the format is scannable. The Args section is minimal and does not bloat the description.

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 (2 parameters, 1 required), has an output schema, and the readOnlyHint annotation. The description explains the primary use case, the alternative for listing, and the parameter defaults, which is complete for the tool's complexity. The output schema handles return values, so no further explanation is needed.

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 100%, so the description adds no new meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already states. The description repeats the parameter names and defaults but does not enrich them beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 identifies the tool as fetching details of a single calendar event or planned workout, distinguishing it from list_events by emphasizing 'single' and specific use cases like inspecting workout steps or race plans. The verb 'fetch' and resource are specific, and sibling differentiation is explicit.

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 explicit usage context ('Use when inspecting target workout steps or race plans') and names an alternative for date-range queries ('To list events across a date range, use list_events'). This guidance helps the agent choose between get_event and list_events.

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