Calendar Get Event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the read-only nature ('Fetch') and the fact that the body is included, which is useful. However, it does not describe error behavior, missing events, authentication requirements, or response shape beyond what an output schema might imply.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and key parameter with no filler. Every word contributes value.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential behavior and parameter semantics. It does not explicitly mention when to use the tool relative to siblings, but that gap is already separately accounted for in usage guidelines.

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 must compensate. It adds meaningful context by explaining that the entryId is an Outlook entryId and that it identifies a single event. This is more informative than the bare string type in the schema, though it could specify where to obtain the entryId.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Fetch'), resource ('single event'), scope ('full detail including body'), and the lookup key ('Outlook entryId'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like calendar_search and calendar_get_notes 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 usage context is implied: use this when you need full event details by a single Outlook entryId. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over calendar_search or other siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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