eventhouse_get

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as response format, pagination, or permissions, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. The verb and resource are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple read operation with two well-documented parameters and safe annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It could be improved by distinguishing itself from eventhouse_get_sql_endpoint or noting what 'details' includes, but nothing critical is missing for a basic get call.

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% for both parameters (workspaceId and eventhouseId), so the schema fully documents them. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific eventhouse'), which distinguishes it from list-type siblings at a basic level. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from closely related siblings like eventhouse_get_sql_endpoint or eventhouse_execute_kql.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as eventhouse_get_sql_endpoint or eventhouse_list. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context cues beyond the schema are provided.

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