Get Calendar Event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read operation and requires delegated Calendars.Read permission, which is valuable. However, it provides no detail on error behavior, response contents, or other side effects, which is a gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 compact two sentences plus Chinese examples, with every piece earning its place. It conveys purpose, permission, and language support without fluff.

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 single-parameter read tool, the description provides good coverage: purpose, permission, and Chinese alternatives. It lacks a pointer to how to obtain the eventId (e.g., via calendar_list_events) and what 'details' includes, but the absence of an output schema reduces the need. Overall, it is nearly 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage of the single parameter (eventId described as 'Calendar event ID'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states 'Read details for a calendar event' with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like calendar_list_events (listing) and calendar_update_event (modifying). The Chinese intents further reinforce the purpose.

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 Chinese intents give examples of when to use it (view meeting details, read event), and the permission requirement is stated. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as calendar_list_events or calendar_get_schedule, nor does it state when not to use it. This leaves usage guidance mostly implied.

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