get_event_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('Gets') but does not state whether special permissions are required, what 'detailed information' includes, or whether the event must be owned by the user. This is minimal and leaves many behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence of 10 words with no fluff or redundant phrases. Every word contributes to the core meaning, making it exceptionally concise.

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 getter, the description is minimally adequate, but the lack of an output schema and the vagueness of 'detailed information' leave the agent uncertain about the return format or the extent of details. It does not relate to sibling tools or any workflow context.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter event_id, including a description. The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema already documents it.

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 the action 'Gets' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific calendar event', making it distinct from sibling tools like list_events (which lists) or create_event (which creates). The scope is specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_events or get_conversation. The description implies the tool is for retrieving details of a known event but does not explain prerequisites like needing an event_id from list_events or exclusions for other event operations.

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