Get Calendar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description only needs to add beyond it. It contributes the OAuth scope requirement ("calendar.read"), which is genuine context not present in annotations. It does not cover behavior such as error handling on an unknown calendar_id or cross-mailbox access limits.

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 short sentences with the operation stated first and the permission requirement second; no filler and nothing buried.

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 single-resource GET with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description plus schema give an agent enough to call it correctly, including the required scope. The remaining gap is minor: no note on failure behavior for a wrong or inaccessible calendar_id.

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%, including mailbox_id's scoping rule and If-None-Match's 304 semantics, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase "in the selected mailbox" loosely reinforces the mailbox_id/calendar_id relationship but adds no syntax or format detail 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?

"Read one calendar in the selected mailbox" gives a specific verb (read) and resource (one calendar), and the singular "one" implicitly separates it from the list_calendars sibling. It stops short of naming a sibling or stating a distinguishing condition explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

"Requires calendar.read" is the only guidance, which is an authorization prerequisite rather than a when-to-use rule. Nothing says whether the caller must first call mailbox_list_calendars to obtain a valid calendar_id, and no alternative (e.g. list_calendars) is named for the bulk case.

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