Event engagement

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantive behavior beyond that: the count is derived from referencing events, capped at 500, and broken down by reaction type and distinct reactors — meaningful semantics an agent cannot get from annotations.

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?

A single dense sentence with the core resource front-loaded and no filler. It is slightly overloaded with the enumeration plus the breakdown clause, but every element carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey the return shape — and it does: counts of four interaction types, a reaction breakdown, and distinct-reactor counts, with the 500-event cap. Remaining gaps (pagination, behavior when the relay doesn't hold the event) are minor for a read-only lookup 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 only 2 parameters, and the schema already documents the id format and the relay URL/default constraint. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., what happens if the id is malformed or the relay lacks the event), so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (one event) and enumerates exactly what is computed: replies, reactions, reposts, zaps plus reaction breakdown and distinct reactor count. It is clearly distinct from generic siblings like recent_events or count_events, though it never explicitly names an alternative to differentiate against.

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?

"For one event" implies the usage context (single-event lookup vs. aggregate/list tools), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not, and no pointer to a sibling for broader queries. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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