get_event

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's job is reduced. It usefully discloses the shape of the payload (description, attendees, organizer, recurrence rule) in the absence of an output schema, but says nothing about behavior when the id is unknown or about permissions/visibility limits.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the retrieval scope and then enumerates the payload; every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotation coverage and no output schema, the description adequately conveys both purpose and return fields. The only real omission is the meaning/format of 'id' and any error or visibility caveat.

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% and the sole 'id' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description; it is not stated whether this is an event id, a recurring-instance id, or a calendar-scoped id. Since only one self-evidently named parameter exists, this is a modest gap rather than a severe one.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Full details of one event') and enumerates what detail is returned (description, attendees, organizer, recurrence rule), which distinguishes it from list_events and search_events. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool over search_events or list_events, and no prerequisites (e.g., that the id must come from a prior list/search call). An agent must infer the usage pattern from the single required 'id' parameter.

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