get_calendar_event

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

The description clearly states this is a retrieval operation ('Get details') and lists the output fields, indicating no destructive side effects. However, it does not explicitly declare the tool as read-only or mention any prerequisites (e.g., access permissions), which would be helpful given the lack of annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the purpose and scope. It efficiently includes environment notes and a list of returned details 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 retrieval tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what will be returned by listing the major fields. No critical information is missing given the tool's straightforward nature.

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 already describes both parameters (calendar_id and event_id) with 100% coverage. The description adds context by noting that event_id comes from list_calendar_events, but does not elaborate further on parameter semantics. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specifies the tool's action: 'Get full details of a single calendar event'. It enumerates the included fields (summary, description, start/end, attendees, location, attachments, meeting link), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_calendar_events (which returns multiple events with less detail) and create/update/delete variants.

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 for retrieving full event details but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like list_calendar_events or update_calendar_event. No exclusion criteria or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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