calendar_get_event

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

The read-only, non-destructive behavior is already clear from annotations and is reinforced by 'Read' and 'immutable'. The description adds that master/originalStart and original zones are preserved, but it does not describe return format, not-found behavior, or other side-effect details.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler, redundant examples, or unnecessary details. It front-loads the action and object before the preservation nuance.

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, the description conveys the core purpose and preserved fields, but no output schema exists and the return structure is not fully specified. AccountId semantics are also missing, leaving some context incomplete.

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?

Only calendarId has an inline description; eventId is only implied by the tool description and accountId is not explained at all. With schema description coverage at 33%, the description does not sufficiently compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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?

Description uses a specific verb 'Read' and a precise object: one exact immutable event ID within the selected calendar. This clearly distinguishes it from list/search/instance sibling tools and from calendar_get_calendar.

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 implies use when the caller already has an exact event ID and needs the original master values, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over calendar_list_instances, calendar_search_events, or other siblings. No exclusions or alternative conditions are given.

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