get_discover_event_item_decorators

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, lowering the transparency burden. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing the exact return shape (`decoratorsByEventId` keyed by event ID) and providing examples of decorator types, which goes beyond the structured 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 two sentences, front-loads the key action, and includes only essential details. No wasted words; every phrase adds value.

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 with only two parameters, a clear output schema, and comprehensive annotations. The description, combined with the schema and annotations, fully covers the necessary context for correct invocation and expectation of results.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameter descriptions already exist for `event_ids` and `fields`. The description does not add additional meaning about parameter syntax, defaults, or relationships, so it stays at the baseline for high coverage.

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's purpose: retrieving decorators/metadata for explore page event cards, with concrete examples like badges and trending. This specific verb+resource scope distinguishes it from sibling tools such as get_event_discover_info and get_discover_curation_options.

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 context (explore page event cards) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or mention any exclusions. Given the large set of similar get_* tools, explicit alternatives would strengthen guidance.

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