outlook_get_event

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail about the return shape: recurrence mirrors what outlook_create_event accepts, the type discriminator values are enumerated, and the timezone semantics of start/end versus original_start_time_zone are explained. It stops short of covering failure modes (missing ID, permissions), but the added value beyond annotations is substantial.

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 purpose plus returned fields in one line, then a short second block for return-value semantics. Dense but every sentence earns its place; no padding or restatement of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains the return payload's timezone and recurrence semantics, which an agent needs to interpret results. It is nearly complete for a simple read, though error and permission behavior for an unknown or inaccessible ID is left unstated.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single event_id parameter, so the description must carry the load and only says retrieval is 'by ID' without format or source guidance. It adds no syntax beyond the schema's string type, though the one-parameter simplicity keeps this from being a serious gap.

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 one event by ID') and immediately enumerates the payload an agent can expect: body, attendees, organizer, recurrence, type, show_as, anchor zone. This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like outlook_list_events and outlook_list_events_delta.

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 never says when to reach for this tool versus outlook_list_events, outlook_list_events_delta, or outlook_get_task. Retrieval-by-ID is implied by the name and schema, but no explicit context, prerequisites, or alternatives are offered.

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