get_experience

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety profile is covered. The description adds a meaningful behavioral trait—the return excludes raw data—which is not in the annotations and helps the agent set expectations about the response. This goes beyond the structured data.

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 sentence, 14 words, and immediately states the action and resource. No fluff or redundant phrases. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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 getter with a rich output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what it does, how to identify the event, and the one caveat (no raw data). No additional context is required.

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%, as the 'uid' parameter has a full description and pattern that matches the description's wording. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema—it repeats the same information ('public 24-character event ID'). Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('stored event') and the exact identifier mechanism ('public 24-character event ID'). It also adds a distinguishing qualifier ('without raw data') that separates it from sibling tools. This is clear and specific.

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 clearly implies the usage context: when you have a public event ID and need a single event. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The distinction 'without raw data' hints at a differentiator but isn't an explicit exclusion.

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