events_get

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

Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature, and the description adds valuable behavioral details: the projected event shape, optional user_count, missing creator_id for pre-October 2021 events, and the raw/untrusted_text distinction. This goes well beyond the annotation safety profile.

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 compact and well-structured, using bold labels (Purpose, When to use, Returns) to front-load key information. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 the tool's simplicity, the rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, usage timing, return shape quirks, and edge cases like historical creator_id absence. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no extra parameter-level semantics beyond referencing the optional user_count, which is already in the schema. The schema fully carries this dimension.

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 opens with 'Fetch a single scheduled event by id', clearly identifying the verb (fetch), resource (scheduled event), and scope (by id). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like events_list, events_create, events_modify, and events_delete.

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 'When to use' section explicitly states: 'Inspect a specific event before modifying or deleting.' This provides clear context for when to call this tool rather than event-modification tools, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives by name.

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