get_event_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: the event object shape, the fact it works beyond invitations, and the specific omission of the current user's RSVP status. This goes beyond what annotations convey, mitigating potential misconceptions.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a concise caveat about scope. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 output schema exists, the return format is covered. The description provides the key contextual elements: scope (any viewable event), the content type (event object), and the distinguishing exclusion (current user's RSVP). No critical behavioral or usage gaps for a read-only tool.

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%, with both parameters described thoroughly, including the extensive dot-path list for 'fields'. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 states 'Get full details for a specific Partiful event by ID' with a clear verb and resource, and enumerates the content ('title, dates, location, ownership, host/guest display settings, guest status counts'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling RSVP-list tools by noting it works for any viewable event, making the purpose 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 says when to use it ('Works for any event you can view') and contrasts with 'RSVP-list tools' by noting it excludes the current user's own RSVP status. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, naming an alternative category of tools.

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