get-specific-calendar-event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it operates on the signed-in user's calendars and works for any calendar, which is useful context, but it does not disclose return format, error behavior, or other side effects. This is acceptable given the read-only annotation.

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 crisp sentences: the first states the core action and addressing, the second clarifies default calendar inclusivity. No fluff or redundant details.

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 simple read operation with a rich schema (9 parameters all described), the description is sufficient to understand the main purpose and scope. It lacks details about return values or error cases, but the absence of an output schema is not a critical gap given the simplicity.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description merely reiterates that calendarId and eventId are used for addressing, which adds no new meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 a single event'), a clear resource ('calendar event'), and the addressing method ('by calendar ID and event ID'). It also notes that any calendar, including the default one, can be addressed, which helps distinguish it from simpler event tools.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you have a calendar ID and event ID) and notes that it works for any calendar including the default. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get-calendar-event, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose one over the other.

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