get-event-details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the input methods (event ID or SKU) but does not disclose what 'detailed information' includes, whether both parameters are required despite schema showing 0 required, or any response format/error behavior. This is insufficient for a tool with no output schema.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It states the verb, resource, and input method efficiently.

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 simple get tool with two parameters, the description is adequate but incomplete. Since there is no output schema, it does not specify what 'detailed information' contains, leaving ambiguity about whether it includes rankings, awards, or other event data. The lack of annotations increases the need for more contextual disclosure.

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 schema already describes both parameters with examples, but the description adds the key semantic relationship that sku and event_id are alternative identifiers ('by event ID or SKU code'). This clarifies how to use the parameters together, which is not explicit in 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's function: retrieving detailed event information by ID or SKU code. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search-events and get-event-awards by focusing on direct retrieval of event details for a known identifier.

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 implies usage when you have an event ID or SKU code, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like search-events for finding events by criteria. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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