get_event

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries real weight and delivers it: default view, mode switch, pagination default (5 per page), body truncation via body_len, and a concrete token cost per view that is "measured live." Cost and truncation behavior are not derivable from any structured field.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the identifying URI pattern, then mode behavior, then cost. No sentence can be removed without losing an actionable fact.

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?

With no output schema, the description must characterize returns and does: summary info by default, a paginated article list otherwise, with truncation and cost specified. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and predict the response shape.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that include_articles switches the entire response shape rather than merely adding a field, and by surfacing the pagination default and body_len truncation in prose. It stops short of explaining articles_page/articles_count interactions in depth.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get one event by URI") and immediately distinguishes two operating modes: default summary info vs. an articles listing via include_articles=true. The reference to the `uri` from search_events makes it trivially separable from the sibling search_events and get_article tools.

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?

Clearly routes the agent: obtain the URI from search_events, and choose include_articles when the goal is the covering articles rather than event info. It does not explicitly contrast itself with get_article for the articles view, so the alternative-selection guidance is slightly incomplete, but the context for use is unambiguous.

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