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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds that the return includes 'all settings,' which gives useful context about response content. However, it doesn't elaborate on pagination, authentication, or other behavioral details. With good annotation coverage, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Get') and resource, and contains no filler. It conveys the core purpose 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 1-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations, the description is sufficient. It indicates the scope and that settings are included, but could be slightly more explicit about the nature of the 'detailed information.' However, given the low complexity and annotation coverage, this is nearly complete.

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% for the single parameter 'calendarId,' described as 'The calendar ID.' The description mentions 'specific calendar' which aligns with the parameter, but it does not add format, examples, or source instructions beyond the schema. Baseline 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 uses the verb 'Get' with a specific resource: 'detailed information about a specific calendar including all settings.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tool get_calendars by scope ('specific calendar' vs. list) and adds detail about the return content ('including all settings').

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 context is clear: use this when you need detailed information about one specific calendar, including its settings. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling names and the 'specific' wording make the intended use evident. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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