outlook_get_event

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the operation is non-destructive. The description additionally explains output behavior (recurrence shape matches create_event input, type values are enumerated), which helps the agent understand what to expect. No side effects or error conditions are mentioned, but none are necessary for a simple read.

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 concise and front-loaded: it states the core action and return fields in one sentence, then adds a brief clarifying note about recurrence and type. No redundant or extraneous information is present.

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 get-by-ID operation, the description is complete. It lists the key returned fields, explains the recurrence shape, and enumerates the type values. This is sufficient for an agent to call the tool and interpret the result without an output schema.

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 only parameter, event_id, is self-explanatory, but the description provides no additional context such as where the ID originates (e.g., from list_events) or format expectations. While not critical for such a simple parameter, the description could have added value by clarifying the ID source.

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 the action ('Get one full calendar event by ID') and enumerates the specific data returned (body, attendees, organizer, recurrence, type). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_events (which lists summaries) and create/update/delete operations.

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 implicitly indicates the appropriate use case: retrieving a single event when you have its ID. Though it doesn't explicitly contrast with list_events or other alternatives, the specific 'by ID' wording and the enumerated full fields make it clear when this tool is the right choice.

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