Get Event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description's 'Get details' aligns with readOnly and adds minimal new context; the 'ID or Luma URL slug' acceptance is already documented in the schema parameter description, so the description adds little beyond the 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 sentence with zero wasted words, front-loading the core action and the accepted identifier format. Efficient and immediately scannable.

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?

Adequate for a simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage. However, with no output schema, the agent gets no expectation of what 'details' the call returns, and platform-specific nuance (e.g., a Luma slug only applies to the luma platform) is left implicit. Several sibling read/scrape tools exist, so a touch more routing context would help.

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 description coverage is 100% — both event_id ('Event ID or Luma slug.') and platform ('Event platform.') are fully documented in the schema. The description largely repeats the event_id semantics ('event ID or Luma URL slug') without adding new meaning, so feeding and reading stay consistent but the description adds no supplementary value.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('details for one event'). The word 'one' signals single-item retrieval, distinguishing it from list_events and search_events without needing to open their schemas. It doesn't explicitly name siblings, but the purpose is 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't name any sibling (e.g., get_event_guests for attendees, search_events for finding by criteria) or state conditions that should route the agent here instead. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling list.

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