Get calendar event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description discloses return-shape behavior the annotations do not: a compact summary is returned by default, and the full structured workout requires passing fields ['*'] or naming workout_doc. This is useful behavioral context, though permission/auth and error behavior remain unstated.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the primary retrieval purpose is front-loaded and the non-obvious return-shape caveat follows immediately.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so by contrasting the default compact summary against the full record. It could go further on what the compact summary contains or how IDs are obtained, but it covers what an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds a field name not present anywhere in the schema ('workout_doc') as a way to pull the structured workout, giving an agent domain-specific guidance beyond the schema's generic '["*"] for everything'.

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 ('Get a specific calendar event by ID'), which separates it from list_events and from get_activity/get_workout. It never names a sibling tool explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than being told, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by 'by ID' (you call this when you already hold an event ID), but the description offers no explicit when-to-use versus list_events or search-adjacent retrieval tools, and states no prerequisites for obtaining the ID.

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