get_event_description

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it documents the HTTP endpoint, the exact permission required (event.details:read), specific error codes with meanings, and the authentication scheme (Bearer PERSONAL_OAUTH_TOKEN). This is rich behavioral context well beyond what structured fields supply.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then organized into labeled sections (ENDPOINT, PERMISSIONS, ERRORS, AUTHENTICATION) that make scanning efficient. Slightly verbose with its multi-section format, but every section is useful for correct invocation.

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 a single simple parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete: it covers purpose, endpoint, return format, permissions, errors, and auth. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% (event_id is documented as 'Event ID (required)'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds the endpoint path showing event_id is a path parameter, but no additional syntax or constraints beyond that.

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: 'Retrieve full HTML description for an Event.' Clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_event, get_structured_content, and get_text_overrides by naming the exact sub-resource (description) and return format (HTML).

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?

Mentions it 'Works with events created using New or Classic Create,' implying a compatibility condition, but offers no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance. An agent must infer that this is the tool for fetching description content as opposed to metadata (get_event) or structured content (get_structured_content).

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