calendar_get_event

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about this being a read-only operation, authentication/account requirements, error behavior for unknown event_ids, or what happens to the event data. Beyond implying a retrieval, it discloses no behavioral traits.

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?

A single four-word sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, with no padding or redundancy. Its brevity is clean, though it is arguably under-sized for a tool carrying three parameters and no annotations.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, three parameters (one required and undocumented), and only 33% schema coverage, the agent is left guessing about the identifier's origin, the default calendar, and account selection. The description is far too thin to be complete.

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 only 33%: the schema documents only 'email', while 'event_id' (required) and 'calendar_id' are bare. The description adds nothing about the required identifier's format/source or about calendar_id defaulting behavior, so it fails to compensate for the documented gaps.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Fetch") with a specific resource ("a single event"), and the word "single" implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling calendar_list_events. It is clear what the tool does, though it never names the sibling or the scope boundary explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus calendar_list_events (which is presumably how you obtain an event_id) or any other sibling. No prerequisites are stated, such as needing an event_id that must first be discovered via listing or search.

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