get_event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the returned fields (event name, code, type, location, etc.) and noting the payload weight, which goes beyond 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?

The description is concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose, include an example, and provide a pointer to an alternative. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 single parameter with high schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately completes the context by enumerating return fields and providing usage examples. It could mention error handling but is sufficient for a single-record retrieval.

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% and the description enhances the parameter meaning with examples (e.g., '2023casj'), explanation of format (season year + event code), and guidance to use get_events to discover valid keys. This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves the full record for a single FRC event by event key, provides an example (e.g., '2023casj'), and lists the returned fields. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_event_simple by suggesting it for a lighter payload.

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 indicates when to use this tool (to get full event details) and points to an alternative (get_event_simple) for a lighter payload. While not exhaustive about when not to use, the context of siblings (many specific tools) implicitly guides usage.

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