bni_event_detail

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It clearly conveys a read-only fetch and discloses what the returned details include: contact, cost, location/online link, and registration count. It does not describe failure modes or response format, but for a simple fetch tool this is acceptable.

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 that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the key return fields. Every phrase adds information, with no filler or redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity, the two parameters are fully documented, and the description covers the main return fields even though no output schema exists. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit guidance about how this tool fits relative to bni_upcoming_events, but the schema reference helps bridge that.

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%, so the input schema already documents both site and eventId. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema's own explanations, leaving it at the baseline score.

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: 'Fetches an event's full details' and enumerates specific content (contact, cost, location/link, registration count). This clearly separates it from the list-oriented sibling bni_upcoming_events, which only returns event summaries.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit. The parameter schema notes that eventId comes from bni_upcoming_events, suggesting a workflow of first listing events then fetching details, but the description itself never states when to prefer this tool over its siblings or when not to use it.

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