Get event

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the read-only nature. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the exact output fields (name, start time, state, entrant count, videogame, parent tournament, phases) and including a practical note about phase ids for use in get_event_sets. It does not contradict annotations and provides adequate behavioral context for a single-item get operation.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose ('Get one event') before listing the output fields and the sibling pointer. Every clause adds value, with no filler or repetition. It is efficiently structured and easily 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?

For a read-only, single-item retrieval with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned (detailed field list) and how the phase ids can be reused. It lacks explicit mention of error conditions or authorization requirements, but those are not significantly needed for a simple get. The output list is sufficiently descriptive for an agent to interpret results.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for all three parameters (url, slug, eventId), with 100% schema_description_coverage. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics or clarify the 'exactly one locator' constraint beyond what the schema states. Since the schema carries the burden, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Get one event (bracket) of a tournament.' It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'one event' and enumerates the exact data returned (name, start time, state, entrant count, videogame, parent tournament, phases). This strongly differentiates it from get_tournament_events (list) and get_event_sets (sets).

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 clear context for when to use this tool by explaining what it returns and how the returned phase ids can be passed to get_event_sets. This implicitly guides agents on the workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., 'if you need all events, use get_tournament_events'), so it falls short of the highest bar.

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