get-specific-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 the useful context that any calendar can be addressed (openWorldHint), but it does not disclose additional behaviors such as response format, error cases, or pagination. Given the annotations, the description provides modest added value.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a clarifying scope detail. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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 read operation with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and scope. It does not discuss return formats or edge cases, but the absence of an output schema and the read-only nature reduce the need for extensive detail. A slight gap is the lack of explicit usage differentiation from sibling tools, but overall it is sufficiently 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents each parameter. The description only restates that the tool is 'addressed by calendar ID and event ID', which adds no new meaning beyond the schema's explicit descriptions. No parameter-specific guidance is provided beyond what the schema already contains.

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 action ('Get a single event'), the resource (calendar events), and the addressing method (calendar ID and event ID). It also explicitly notes that any calendar, including the default, can be addressed, which distinguishes it from generic 'get-calendar-event' tools that might assume the default calendar.

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 implies usage by specifying the need for both calendar ID and event ID, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'list-specific-calendar-events' or 'get-calendar-view'. No exclusions or alternative conditions are mentioned, leaving some inference to the agent.

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