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

The annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as not-found behavior, permissions, or output shape.

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 wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the operation and immediately states the core action.

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-by-ID tool with one required parameter, full schema coverage, and rich annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. It lacks detail about the returned calendar fields, but no output schema exists, so the omission is minor.

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 100%, and the schema already documents the single id parameter as a Calendar UUID. The description adds no further meaning, format, or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieve details of a specific calendar. It implies retrieval of one record by ID, which distinguishes it from list_calendars, but it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It only restates the basic operation, leaving the agent to infer that it applies when a calendar ID is already known.

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