Get a calendar event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: the description body is HTML-converted to text and capped (a truncation limit), and it mentions recurrence summary and the Outlook web link. This gives the agent a good sense of the return shape and transformation applied, going beyond the basic read-only nature.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence enumerates the return fields in a compact list, and the second gives the essential usage instruction. All content earns its place; nothing extraneous.

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 read tool with one required parameter, the description is quite complete. It lists all major return fields, explains the prerequisite, and the schema covers timezone handling. It doesn't mention error behavior (e.g., event not found) but that is standard and not critical for an agent to invoke correctly. Overall, an agent has enough to call it properly.

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 coverage is 100%: both id and timeZone are fully described in the schema. The description does not add new parameter semantics, though it reiterates the id source ('from calendar_list_events') which is already in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 tool's purpose: returns one event in full, listing the specific fields (subject, start, end, location, organizer, attendees, description, recurrence, link). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like calendar_list_events (which lists events) and calendar_get_schedule (which gets availability) by focusing on a single event's complete details.

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?

Provides explicit guidance to use calendar_list_events first to find the id, which is the key prerequisite. It clearly implies this tool is for retrieving a single event after identifying it. Does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like calendar_get_schedule, but the usage context is clear from the instruction.

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