get_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation via 'Get' and describes the output as 'JSON string with event details,' plus the contents (metrics, descriptions, workout structure). It does not mention edge cases like missing event IDs, but for a simple retrieval, this is adequate transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args/Returns sections are helpful and not overly verbose, though the 'Returns' sentence repeats the earlier 'Returns complete details' concept slightly. Overall, every sentence earns its place without unnecessary fluff.

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 get tool with an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool returns and the parameter. It lacks explicit error-handling notes, but given the simplicity and the output schema's presence, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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% with 'Event ID to retrieve' for the parameter. The description adds 'The unique ID of the event,' which is a minor semantic enhancement. Since the schema already documents the parameter, the description adds marginal value, aligning with the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 starts with 'Get detailed information for a specific calendar event,' which uses a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_calendar_events by emphasizing 'specific' and 'single event,' and adds scope by listing included details (metrics, descriptions, workout structure).

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 fetching one event by ID but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_calendar_events or state when not to use it. The phrase 'specific calendar event' gives some context, but no direct exclusion or alternative is named.

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