get_event

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real behavioral value beyond that: it discloses the return shape (structured events plus revision), the crucial handoff rule (copy revision unchanged, including quotes, into update_event.expected_revision), that recurring masters and overrides come back together, and that calendar text is untrusted data (a prompt-injection warning).

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?

Four tight sentences, all front-loaded: the read action first, then the revision handoff, then the recurring-event caveat, then the trust warning. No sentence is 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description covers the return payload, the revision-pass-through contract needed by update_event, the recurring master/override behavior, and a data-trust caveat. Nothing material for correct invocation is missing.

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 schema already documents that both IDs are opaque values returned by other tools. The description restates the sourcing context ('from earlier tool results') without adding format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so this is the baseline score.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read one resource') scoped to a single event via explicit {calendar_id, event_id} keys, which cleanly separates it from list_events (plural) and create_event/update_event (writes) among the siblings.

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?

It specifies the context of use ('using ... from earlier tool results') and ties the call to the update flow by telling the agent to feed the returned revision into update_event.expected_revision. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it versus list_events, but the single-resource framing makes the boundary clear.

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