calendars_get_appointment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds zero behavioral context beyond the name. It does not describe what is returned, any side effects, or special behaviors (e.g., handling of recurring events). The description does not contradict annotations, but it adds no 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 only two words, which is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks any useful information that would help an agent understand the tool's purpose or usage. Every sentence should earn its place, but here there is no sentence, just a vague phrase.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what an appointment is, what the return value looks like, or any edge cases such as recurring appointments. The annotations provide some safety context, but the description itself leaves the agent without essential information.

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 schema description for eventId is detailed and covers 100% of parameters, explaining that for recurring appointments the masterEventId should be sent to modify the original series. The tool description contributes nothing beyond the schema, so a baseline of 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 'Get Appointment' is essentially a tautology of the tool name. It does not specify what kind of appointment, what resource it operates on, or distinguish it from other calendar tools like calendars_get_calendar_events or calendars_get_slots. It provides minimal verb+resource but no specificity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like calendars_get_calendar_events or calendars_get_slots. No context is provided about scenarios, prerequisites, or why one would choose this over sibling tools.

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