get_event_discover_status

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds minimal extra behavioral context beyond the return value, but does not disclose edge cases like event not found or open-world behavior. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 compact sentences that front-load the core purpose and include sibling differentiation without any redundant words. Every sentence 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?

For a simple read-only check with two parameters and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose and differentiation. It does not mention potential alternative get_discoverable_events, but that is not necessary for this tool's basic usage. The description is complete enough for the tool's complexity.

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% for both parameters (event_id and fields), with descriptions already present. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states the tool checks whether a Partiful event is listed on explore/discover and returns the discoverability flag/status. It goes further by explicitly distinguishing it from get_event_discover_info and get_discover_curation_options, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit differentiation between this tool and two related siblings, indicating when to use this tool (to check if listed) versus alternatives (to get region/sections/tags or host-only settings). This gives clear usage context and excludes alternatives.

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