Read Calendar Event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint: false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what specific data fields are returned (body, attendees, attachment IDs), but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as error conditions or external dependencies.

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 phrase, front-loaded with the key concept 'Full calendar event', and every word adds value. No superfluous information or repetition.

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 presence of an output schema and strong annotations (read-only, idempotent), the description adequately complements the structured data. It highlights the key return elements without needing to explain return values in detail, and the tool is simple enough that the description is sufficient.

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 item_id described as coming from get_calendar_events and body_format explained as text vs html. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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?

The description clearly specifies that the tool returns a full calendar event including body, attendee response statuses, and attachment IDs. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_calendar_events (list) and get_attachment (single attachment), even though it lacks an explicit verb.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it retrieves a single event by ID or contrast it with get_calendar_events, so usage context must be inferred from the name and schema.

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