Read one event in full

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description is free to add value. It explains the distinction between occurrence ids (return one instance) and series ids (return the series and its rule), which is critical behavioral context not available elsewhere.

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?

Two tight sentences provide high-value information without filler. The core purpose is stated first, followed by the important occurrence/series behavior, with no redundant elaboration.

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 single parameter, strong annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It captures what the response contains, the id-sourcing expectation, and the distinction between occurrence and series ids, leaving no critical gap for an agent to call it correctly.

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 100%, and the parameter description already says the id comes from a listing tool and should not be hand-built. The tool description reinforces this and adds the occurrence-vs-series behavior tied to the id type, going beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('read') with a clear resource ('one event') and explicitly states the full scope: untruncated description, reminders, attendees, and attachment metadata. This clearly distinguishes it from listing tools like list_events and search_events, which return truncated or filtered views.

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 clearly indicates the tool should be used with an id obtained from a listing tool, implying the appropriate context of use after listing/searching. It does not explicitly name alternatives like get_journal or get_task, but the event-specific focus and id provenance instruction provide sufficient guidance.

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