get_event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which fully covers the safety profile. The description adds little behavioral context beyond what annotations provide — it doesn't mention response format (compensated by output schema), error cases, or whether calendar_id affects behavior. With strong annotation coverage, a mid-score is appropriate since the description doesn't contradict annotations but doesn't add substantial transparency either.

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, concise sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately front-loaded with the purpose. However, it could arguably have added a bit more value (e.g., distinguishing from get_calendar) without hurting conciseness, which is why it doesn't reach a 5.

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 read-only nature, 100% schema coverage on 2 simple parameters, strong annotations declaring safety/idempotency, and the presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. The main gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from get_calendar sibling. But overall, for a simple read tool, the description plus schema plus annotations cover the essentials adequately.

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 both parameters (event_id and calendar_id) are already documented in the schema. The description itself mentions no parameters. Per the baseline rule, with high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate — the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no extra semantic context about either parameter.

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 states the verb ('Get') and resource ('full details of a single calendar event'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_events (multiple events) or create_event (mutation). However, it does not explicitly contrast with its closest sibling get_calendar (which likely retrieves calendar metadata rather than an event), so sibling differentiation is only implicit. It's clear but not maximally specific about what 'full details' entails.

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 this is a read operation for inspecting one event, which distinguishes it from list_events and create/update/delete mutations. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, no mention that get_calendar is for calendar-level info, and no exclusions are stated. Usage context is implied by the verb+noun phrasing rather than stated explicitly.

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