get_calendar_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly identifies the output behavior by listing the returned fields (summary, description, start/end, attendees, location, attachments, meeting link), indicating a read-only operation. It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but the get verb and output details provide sufficient transparency for a simple read tool.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists key output fields. Every phrase adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It states what the tool does, what fields it returns, and the schema covers the parameter details. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the field list in the description.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, with both parameters already described ('Event ID from list_calendar_events' and 'Calendar ID'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but per the rubric, high schema coverage warrants a baseline of 3.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get full details of a single calendar event' and enumerates the specific fields returned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_calendar_events, create_calendar_event, or delete_calendar_event, which have different actions.

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 when you need full details of one event, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases. Given the many calendar-related siblings, explicit guidance would help, but the phrase 'single calendar event' offers some implied context.

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