Get an event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds the HTTP method, the fact that no body fields are needed, and a documentation reference, but it does not describe response shape, error behavior, authorization, or rate limits. This is acceptable for a simple read-only GET because the annotations carry the safety profile.

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 extremely terse and front-loaded: a one-line purpose, the exact endpoint, a body-field note, and a reference link. Every fragment earns its place and no unnecessary wording is present.

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 straightforward read-only GET-by-ID operation, the description plus schema is nearly sufficient: the endpoint, required eventId, optional query parameters, and non-destructive nature are all covered. The main gaps are the lack of an explicit return-value description (no output schema exists) and the absence of guidance distinguishing this from the plural events-listing tool, but these are minor given the simplicity of the operation.

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 tool description adds the endpoint template, making it clear that eventId is a path parameter, and explicitly states that there is no request body. However, it does not explain what an eventId is or how to obtain it, and it leaves query parameter semantics to the schema, which does describe embed, targeted, at, and pagination behavior. The schema's coverage is partial, so the description only partially compensates.

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 identifies the operation as retrieving a single event and gives the exact REST endpoint, which distinguishes it from list-style siblings like xmatters_get_events. It does not explicitly contrast itself with related single-resource tools such as xmatters_get_event_audit_information, but the endpoint and eventId path parameter make the core 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as xmatters_get_events, xmatters_get_an_event_annotation, or xmatters_get_event_audit_information. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or cases where another tool should be preferred.

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