get_calendar_item

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

The description adds one useful behavioral nuance beyond annotations: 'A UID may have recurring matches', which warns that a single identifier can yield multiple results. However, it does not disclose what the refresh parameter does, whether the operation has side effects (readOnlyHint is false), or what the return payload looks like.

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 with no filler; the key lookup semantics are front-loaded, and every word contributes. This is appropriately concise.

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 3-parameter lookup with no output schema, refresh defaulting to true, and readOnlyHint false, the description leaves critical behavior unaddressed: what refresh does, how recurring matches are returned or limited, and when to prefer sibling tools. It is above a tautology but below the minimum viable for safe agent invocation.

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 descriptions are essentially absent (only titles/defaults), so the description must compensate. It explains identifier semantics ('stable item_id or source UID') and hints at why limit exists via recurring matches, but refresh is left completely unexplained. This partial coverage earns a mid-range 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('an item') and identifies the lookup key ('stable item_id or source UID'), which is clear and differentiates this from sibling list/overview tools. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the by-identifier semantics make the tool's purpose sufficiently distinguishable.

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: an agent should call this when it already has an item_id or source UID. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives are mentioned, and sibling tools like list_upcoming or get_course_overview are not routed around.

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