m365_calendar_get

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context about returned content: notes are included, body format and length matter, and truncation status is explicit.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The trailing phrase 'with body format, length and explicit truncation status' is slightly compressed and awkward, but not wasteful.

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 simple read-by-ID tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety traits, the description gives enough context: it reads one event, includes notes, and surfaces truncation. Missing return-shape detail is acceptable because no output schema exists but the core response traits are noted.

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%, so the schema already documents eventId, calendarId, and maxBodyChars in detail. The description only hints at body format/length/truncation and does not add parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read one event including its notes.' The phrase 'one event' helps distinguish it from calendar list/week/today siblings, though no sibling is explicitly named.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'Read one event'; there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative such as m365_calendar_list or m365_calendar_week.

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