indico_get_event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and environment. The description adds the id/db_id distinction for contributions, which is useful output semantics but not a behavioral trait like permissions or rate limits. No annotation contradiction exists.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then a targeted clarification. Every sentence earns its place; no 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 an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is largely complete for a fetch tool. It omits any when-to-use guidance and only partially lists the detail options, but the critical id/db_id caveat is included, making it adequate.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including the detail enum and event_id/instance descriptions. The description's phrase 'optionally contributions or sessions' only partially mirrors the detail enum (omitting events and subcontributions) and adds no new parameter semantics, setting the baseline at 3.

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 'Get' and resource 'event', listing included details (dates, location, chairs, material) and optional inclusions (contributions or sessions). It does not name sibling tools, so it lacks explicit differentiation from similar getters like indico_get_timetable or indico_list_contributions.

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 over alternatives such as indico_list_contributions or indico_get_timetable. The mention of optional contributions/sessions is scoped to the detail parameter, not to tool selection, so an agent must infer appropriate usage.

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