blackboard_get_calendar_event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The clause 'no modifica citas' merely restates the read-only hint and adds no new behavioral context such as error behavior when an event ID is stale or what the detail payload contains.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the two facts that matter (key source, side-effect-free). No 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?

With no output schema, the description should convey something about the returned detail, and it does not. For a simple two-parameter read whose safety profile is carried by annotations, it is adequate but leaves the return shape and failure modes unexplained.

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 carries the burden, and it does identify both parameters and their origin (list_calendar output). However, it adds no meaning about the 'type' semantics beyond the enum values already in the schema, and nothing about the eventId format.

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+resource ('Detalle de un evento') and the lookup keys (tipo e ID), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling list_calendar that produces those keys. It does not contrast itself against other get_* siblings, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 tells the agent where the required arguments come from ('devueltos por list_calendar'), which implies a list-then-get workflow. It gives no explicit when-not guidance or alternatives, so usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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