calendar_get_event

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the required 'Calendars.Read' permission and the specific return fields, which enriches transparency beyond the structured metadata. No contradiction.

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 three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: presenting the operation and return contents, specifying the ID source, and noting an alternative plus permission. There is no extraneous information.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description fully specifies the returned fields and the required input context. It also covers the alternative tool and permission requirement, making it self-contained for a simple get operation.

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 defines meeting_id with a generic description, but the description adds provenance: the ID comes from either calendar_list_upcoming_events or calendar_list_events_in_range. This helps the agent locate a valid ID and complements the schema rather than repeating it.

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 'Get' with a clear resource 'calendar event in full' and enumerates the detail fields. It explicitly names calendar_get_event_attendees as an alternative, distinguishing it from the sibling tool.

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?

It states the tool takes an event id from calendar_list_upcoming_events or calendar_list_events_in_range, providing a prerequisite. It also directly advises when to use a different tool ('Use calendar_get_event_attendees when only the attendee list is needed'), which gives exclusion guidance.

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