calendar_get_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the return includes the event description and that omitting calendar_name searches all calendars. It does not state that this is strictly a read-only operation, nor does it cover error behavior (e.g., event not found) or permission requirements, leaving gaps for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by tightly formatted argument notes. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers both parameters and notes the return includes the event description. It omits error-handling and permission context, but for a simple single-event read tool it is largely sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for both parameters: calendar_name ('Calendar to look in; omit to search all calendars') and event_uid ('The event's `uid` (from calendar_list_events)'). This is helpful, though it could go further by describing the uid format or any constraints.

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 ('one event by its uid'), clearly distinguishing it from list or multi-event siblings. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with calendar_get_upcoming_events or calendar_list_events, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

The description gives parameter-level guidance ('omit to search all calendars') and references calendar_list_events as the source of the uid, implying usage context. But it never states when to choose this tool over list_events or get_upcoming_events, leaving the agent to infer the single-event retrieval scenario.

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