Read a calendar event

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful return-content context by specifying exactly what is included in a full event read, which is valuable because no output schema is provided. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

One crisp sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then enumerates the relevant return contents without any filler or redundancy.

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 annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description and schema together are sufficient. The only minor gap is that the exact response shape is not fully specified, but the description's enumeration of returned fields largely compensates for the absent output schema.

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%, with sensible descriptions for account, event_id, and calendar_id including the default for calendar_id. The tool description adds no parameter-specific details, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already carries that burden.

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 ('Read') and resource ('one event') and clearly defines scope: description, location, attendees and their responses, and a link. This distinguishes it from calendar_list_events and other calendar operations without ambiguity.

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 the correct use case: retrieving the full content of a single event rather than a summary list or a mutation. It does not explicitly name alternatives like calendar_list_events, but the 'one event in full' framing gives clear contextual guidance with no exclusions needed.

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