calendars_get_calendar_resource

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as what happens if the resource does not exist, whether it returns null, or any special conditions. With annotations covering the core safety aspects, the description contributes nothing beyond them.

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: 'Get Calendar Resource'. While it is undeniably concise, it is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It merely restates the tool's name without adding any useful content, so it does not earn its place as a meaningful description.

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?

The tool is simple with two required parameters, but the description fails to clarify what the response will contain (there is no output schema). An agent calling this tool would not know if it returns details about the resource, a confirmation, or an error. Given the lack of output schema and the minimal description, more explanation is needed for the agent to call it confidently.

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 parameters 'id' and 'resourceType' are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about how the parameters interact or what values are acceptable. Since the schema already carries the full weight, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 and object: 'Get Calendar Resource'. However, it does not specify that this retrieves a single resource by ID, nor does it distinguish itself from the sibling 'calendars_fetch_calendar_resources' which likely lists resources. The description is not a complete tautology (it adds the object 'Calendar Resource'), but it is vague and fails to differentiate among the many calendar-related get tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention that it retrieves a single resource by ID while 'calendars_fetch_calendar_resources' retrieves a list, nor any indication of common use cases. The absence of any direction leaves the agent to infer usage from the parameters alone.

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