get-calendar-event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about HTML-only response bodies and extension support, which is useful. It does not contradict annotations, but adds only moderate extra behavioral detail beyond the structured metadata.

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 two sentences and gets to the point immediately. It states purpose first, then adds the HTML format note and extensions. No waste, though it could be slightly more structured with a purpose-first approach already in place.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters (1 required) and many similar siblings, the description is incomplete. It does not mention how parameters like expand, select, or timezone should be used, nor does it help the agent choose between this and get-specific-calendar-event. The read-only nature is covered by annotations, but overall context for correct invocation is thin.

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%, so all 8 parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add meaning to parameters beyond what schema already provides. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 clear verb-resource pair: 'Get the properties and relationships of the specified event object.' It also adds a useful detail (HTML-only bodies) and mentions extensions. However, it does not differentiate from similar siblings like get-specific-calendar-event or list-calendar-events, so it's clear but not distinctive.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a scenario for getting events in another user's calendar, but does not state exclusion criteria or point to a sibling. With many calendar event tools available, this lacks needed routing information.

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