get_event_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds return-content context beyond the annotations — category, sport, planned time/load, paired activity, and the full workout document with steps and zone times — which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema. It omits any cost, auth, or size caveats.

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, front-loaded with the use case then the return payload, with no filler. Slightly dense return enumeration but every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-value burden by enumerating what comes back. Safety is handled by annotations and all four params by the schema, so the definition is nearly complete for a single-item read 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so event_id, athlete_id, output_format, and resolve_targets are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'planned time in zones' loosely relates to resolve_targets but adds no syntax or format guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'read one calendar event completely,' which contrasts with the plural sibling get_events. The 'one ... completely' framing and the workout-document detail make the object of the tool unambiguous, though it never explicitly names the sibling it complements.

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?

Gives one concrete scenario ('to read back a workout right after writing it'), which anchors usage. However, it names no alternatives (get_events, get_library_workout) and states no when-not conditions, leaving selection to inference.

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