Get event

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by describing the returned payload (UTC-normalized times, explicit time zone, visibility scope), which matters because there is no output schema. It omits failure behavior (e.g., nonexistent event_id or access-restricted event).

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?

Two short sentences with the return summary front-loaded. The first sentence ('full description, place and access') is largely restated by the second, a small redundancy, but there is 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?

For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back and in what form (UTC, time zone, visibility). It lacks only edge-case behavior such as not-found or permission-denied handling.

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%: 'group' is explained with the URL-name convention and 'event_id' is tied to list_events. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Returns one event of the group's calendar') and enumerates the fields surfaced (title, description, times in UTC, time zone, location, visibility). It is clearly a single-item fetch distinct from list_events, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'One calendar event' suggests fetching details for a known event, and the schema's event_id note ('from list_events') supplies the discovery path. No exclusions or explicit when-to-use versus list_events/update_event appears in the description itself.

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