get_event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — it says nothing about what 'line items' are, whether the lookup is by database id, or what happens when the id is not found.

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 terse sentence with no filler and the core action front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though brevity here partly reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 single-param read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain the id's meaning and what 'line items' entails. Neither is present, so an agent cannot call it confidently without trial and error.

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 0%, so the sole parameter 'id' is undocumented everywhere. The description never clarifies whether id is an event id, a slug, or an external identifier, leaving the parameter semantics entirely to guesswork.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('event') with a vague scope modifier ('with line items'). It does not distinguish this from siblings like get_menu, get_recipe, or get_menu_item, which share the identical singular-retrieval pattern.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus list_events or the other get_* siblings. The agent must infer that this is the single-object fetch counterpart to list_events.

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