get_event_discover_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying the exact data returned (region, sections, tags) and reinforces the read-only nature implicitly through 'get'. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond the raw flags.

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 sentences, zero redundant phrasing. The first sentence states the action and payload; the second sentence preempts confusion with related tools. Well 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the complete schema, rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage, and distinctions. Nothing critical is missing.

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%: both event_id and fields are fully documented. The description does not add new parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies. The mention of 'region, sections, tags' mirrors the schema's available fields.

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-resource pair ('Get discover-page info') and explicitly enumerates the content (region, sections, tags). It also names two sibling tools and contrasts their purposes, making the tool's function unmistakable.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Distinct from get_event_discover_status... and get_discover_curation_options...' This gives clear exclusions and clarifies the intended scenario for this tool.

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