calendar_v3_get_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function ('Get details') without mentioning authentication requirements, rate limits, error responses, or what specific details are returned. For a read operation in a calendar API, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the essential information. Every word serves a purpose: the API context, the action, and the resource. There's no wasted verbiage or redundant information.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. While the purpose is clear, it doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, how authentication works, potential error cases, or performance characteristics. Given the complexity of calendar events and the lack of structured output documentation, more context would be helpful for effective tool use.

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% description coverage, with the single parameter 'event_id' clearly documented. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what the schema provides, but with complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. No additional semantics about event ID format or sources are mentioned.

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 action ('Get details') and resource ('specific calendar event'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'calendar_v3_list_events' which also retrieves event information, though in a different format (list vs. single item). The API version context ('Calendar API v3') is helpful but not essential for purpose clarity.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The agent must infer from the name and description that this retrieves a single event by ID, while 'calendar_v3_list_events' retrieves multiple events, but this distinction isn't explicitly stated. There's no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases.

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