get-calendar-event

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuine behavioral context by enumerating what the response contains (body, organizer/attendee mapping, per-attendee status values, recurrenceRule, files). Since no output schema exists, this return-shape disclosure carries real weight; it stops short of 5 for omitting auth or pagination notes.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the required-parameter constraint, then routing, then a minimal example, then return contents. Every element is short and earns its place; the inline example is small enough to justify itself as a format cue.

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 two-required-param read-only getter with no output schema, the description covers ID provenance and the returned fields, which is what an agent needs to call it and interpret results. The only gap is nothing about error behavior for invalid IDs, which is minor.

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 both params are required, so baseline would be 3. The description adds meaning beyond the bare 'Event ID'/'Calendar ID' schema text by specifying that the values come from get-calendar-event-list's calendar.id and id fields, and the example shows the concrete wire shape.

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 ('Get details of a Dooray calendar event') and immediately distinguishes it from the sibling get-calendar-event-list by pointing there as the source of the IDs. An agent can tell single-event retrieval apart from listing without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly says both calendarId and eventId are required and where to obtain them ('Take them from get-calendar-event-list (calendar.id and id)'), which is real routing guidance. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use language, but the list-vs-detail split is effectively established.

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