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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses auth requirements and access restrictions, but does not mention other behavioral traits such as idempotency, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. For a simple getter, this is adequate but not rich.

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-loading the auth requirement, with no wasted words. It is efficiently sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the purpose and access constraints but does not explain the return format or error conditions. For a one-parameter read tool, this is minimally viable but incomplete.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with one parameter (event_id) already described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'by id' which is already evident from the name and schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 gets a kal event by ID, with specific access conditions. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get-event-children and get-my-events by focusing on retrieving a single event by ID.

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 auth is required and access depends on membership or billing, providing context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool compared to siblings like get-my-events or get-event-history.

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