Get a calendar event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety expectations. The description adds a minor clarification that the tool can retrieve assignment-dates in addition to calendar events, which is useful but not deeply behavioral. It does not mention potential error responses or authentication requirements, but given the annotation coverage, a moderate score is appropriate.

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, concise sentence with no superfluous words. The core action and object are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable for an agent. It effectively conveys the purpose without redundancy.

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 get-by-id operation with one parameter, the description, combined with schema and annotations, covers the essentials. There is no output schema to explain return values, so the description could hint at the response structure, but the tool's intent is clear. Minor gaps like error handling are acceptable for such a straightforward retrieval tool.

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 single parameter 'eventId' is fully described in the schema as 'Canvas numeric id', giving 100% schema description coverage. The description merely repeats 'by id' without adding semantic nuance, so the schema carries the burden. Baseline 3 is fitting as no additional meaning is provided beyond the structured data.

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 verb 'Get', the specific resource 'one calendar event or assignment-date', and the method 'by id'. It is distinct from the sibling tool 'canvas_list_calendar_events' which lists multiple events, and the agent can easily differentiate them without viewing schemas.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for a single event while listing is for multiple, nor does it reference any contrasting sibling tools. Without such context, an agent may struggle to choose the correct tool in a broader workflow.

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