get_series_master

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the operation is an 'Inspect' (read-only), and adds valuable context: returns recurrence pattern and cancelled occurrences, and automatically resolves any series event ID to the master. However, it does not explicitly state that no modifications are made or mention any permissions required, though the inspect verb strongly implies read-only.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose ('Inspect the master event of a recurring series') and then provide essential details in the second sentence. No redundant words or information.

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 read-only tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the key aspects: what the tool does, what it returns, and the flexibility of the input. It could benefit from a note about timezone handling or a mention of read-only side effects, but overall it is sufficiently complete given the simplicity of the tool.

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. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema: the eventId parameter description in the schema already explains that it accepts any event ID and is resolved automatically; the timezone parameter is fully described in the schema. Therefore, the description does not compensate beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('master event of a recurring series'), clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like list_series_instances or get_calendar_events. It also specifies the return payload (recurrence pattern, cancelled occurrences, full event details), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 need details about the master event of a recurring series, including recurrence pattern and cancelled occurrences. It also clarifies the flexible input (any event ID from the series), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_series_instances or mention when not to use it.

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