outlook_get_event

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

readOnlyHint already declares the read-only profile, but the description adds substantive context beyond annotations: the returned fields (attendees with proposed_new_time, is_organizer, allow_new_time_proposals, recurrence), the UTC convention for start/end with original_start_time_zone as anchor, and that recurrence matches the create tool's shape. It stops short of stating whether cancellation still returns the record or how attachments are represented.

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-loads the invocation rule in the first sentence, then the return contract. The field enumeration is dense but each item carries actual information; only the timezone sentence is slightly compressed in a way that reads as shorthand.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return contents — and it does, listing the meaningful fields plus timezone and recurrence semantics. Combined with readOnlyHint, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 0% and the schema has no descriptions, so the description must carry the parameter meaning — and it does, explaining that event_id reads an event while message_id reads an invitation, with a mutual-exclusion rule ('exactly one'). It doesn't state id formats or what happens if both or neither are supplied at runtime.

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 ('Read an event') and covers both retrieval modes: by event_id or by message_id for an invitation. This is clearly distinguishable from list_events, list_events_delta, and find_event_by_key, which operate on keys or collections rather than a single id.

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 'exactly one' constraint tells the agent how to invoke but not when to choose this tool over siblings such as outlook_find_event_by_key or outlook_read_message. Usage is implied by the id types rather than stated with explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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