calendar_read

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real value: it returns the full resource *and* the ETag, and it is a mandatory step in the mutation workflow. That ETag detail hints at optimistic-concurrency requirements an agent would otherwise miss.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core action and its role in the workflow front-loaded. Every clause carries 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 single-ID read with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers purpose, returned payload (resource + ETag), and workflow position. The remaining gap is how to obtain a valid event_id, which is left to the caller.

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?

There is one parameter, event_id, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about its form, source, or constraints. Since coverage is far below 50%, the description is expected to compensate and does not.

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 (read) and resource (complete event resource plus its ETag), which implicitly separates it from calendar_list and calendar_search that return collections rather than one full event. It never names those siblings explicitly, so an agent has to infer the distinction from 'complete event resource'.

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?

'Required before changing or deleting events' gives an explicit precondition that routes the agent to call this before calendar_update or calendar_delete. It stops short of naming those tools or stating when reading is *not* needed, but the positive usage condition is unambiguous.

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