get_calendar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well-established. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations provide — it doesn't mention rate limits, auth requirements, or what fields are returned. With strong annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate since the description doesn't conflict but also doesn't enrich.

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 efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately terse for a simple retrieval tool with one parameter. However, it could arguably offer one more detail about what 'details' means to aid selection.

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-only tool with one parameter (fully documented), an output schema present, and comprehensive annotations, the description is largely sufficient. An output schema exists so return values don't need explanation. The main gap is the absence of an explicit note distinguishing it from list_calendars in the description itself, but the overall package is quite complete.

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%, and the single parameter calendar_id has a clear description ('Calendar ID to retrieve') with a default of 'primary'. The description adds the word 'specific' implying the calendar is targeted by ID, which aligns with the schema. Since the schema fully documents the parameter, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (calendar) to state it retrieves details of a specific calendar. It clearly distinguishes itself from list_calendars (which lists calendars) though it doesn't explicitly call out that distinction. It's clear but minimal.

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 usage context — you use this to get a single calendar's details versus listing all calendars. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like list_calendars. No exclusions or explicit guidance on when this is preferred over siblings.

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