humanitix_get_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the default return shape (trimmed event, raw=true for full payload), but says nothing about error behavior for an unknown event_id, authentication/account scoping, or rate limits.

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 tight sentences with the lookup key and the default-vs-raw behavior front-loaded; nothing is wasted and there is no filler.

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 3-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not characterize what the trimmed payload omits versus raw, nor failure cases, leaving some gaps an agent would want.

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 event_id, raw, and override_location are all already documented. The description's mention of raw=true mirrors the schema's own default:false and description, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it.

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 (fetch) and resource (a single Humanitix event) qualified by the lookup key (event identifier), which cleanly separates it from the list-style siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming humanitix_list_events as the alternative for multi-event retrieval.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent must infer that this tool is for resolving a known event_id to full details while list tools cover discovery. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to any sibling.

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