get_schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it includes specific fields and conditionally handles meeting schedules, but does not explain error behavior or non-meeting cases. Moderate additional value beyond annotations.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It is concise and to the point, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing fields in a bulleted list) for readability.

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 existence of an output schema, the description adequately summarizes the key returned fields. However, it does not clarify the behavior for non-meeting schedules or mention edge cases like missing schedules. Overall, it is fairly complete for a simple retrieval tool.

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 single parameter scheduleId is fully described in the schema (100% coverage) as 'a string that will be trimmed'. The tool description adds no further meaning or usage guidance for the parameter, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'one calendar schedule', and lists specific fields (owner, availability, calendar target, time zone, room information) that distinguish it from list_schedules and other CRUD tools. This provides a specific and identifiable purpose.

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 description implies use for getting a single detailed schedule, but does not explicitly contrast with list_schedules or mention when to avoid it. No guidance on prerequisites or alternatives is given, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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