Get Event Type

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. The description adds the concrete auth requirement ('Required scopes: event_types:read'), which is genuinely useful context beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about return shape, pagination, or error behavior.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is achieved partly by omitting needed information rather than by tight editing.

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?

With no output schema and a 50% documented schema, the description should carry more: it never explains what the returned event type contains, whether the account param changes behavior, or how it differs from sibling retrieval tools. The scope line is the only substantive addition.

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 50%: the 'account' parameter is documented in the schema but 'event_type_uuid' has only pattern/minLength constraints. The description does not compensate by explaining what the UUID identifies or how account selection affects the lookup, so it adds nothing beyond the structured fields.

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+resource ('Get Event Type' / 'Reads Calendly data'), which is enough to know it retrieves a single event type. However, it does not differentiate from the many sibling read tools in play (get_event, get_event_invitee, list_event_types), so an agent cannot tell at a glance why it would choose this one over the list variant.

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 alternatives such as list_event_types or get_event. The only routing information is the scope requirement, which is an authorization constraint rather than a usage condition.

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