get_event_restrictions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable context by disclosing the response shape ('returns a `restrictions` array') and the caveat that per-restriction shapes are undocumented and pass through as-is, setting expectations about unknown fields.

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-loaded with the core action and examples, and the pass-through caveat justifies its inclusion. No wasteful wording.

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 schema covers parameters and annotations cover safety, the description adds return-shape and data-shape caveats. It is sufficiently complete for a simple read-only tool, though it could explicitly distinguish from get_all_event_restrictions.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (event_id and fields). The description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 clearly states 'Get the restrictions... for a Partiful event by ID' with concrete examples like minimum age, capacity, and approval requirements. It distinguishes from sibling get_all_event_restrictions implicitly via 'by ID', but does not explicitly name the sibling.

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?

Usage is implied: call when you need restrictions for a specific event ID. No explicit when-not guidance or alternative sibling mention (e.g., get_all_event_restrictions) is provided.

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