Get Calendar Event

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the return content (full event record with specific fields) and error behavior ('Error: Resource not found' for invalid IDs), which helps the agent understand outcomes.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by specific sections for arguments, returns, and errors. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and rich annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, returns, and errors. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the return structure, though the listed fields provide adequate guidance for an agent.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing the parameters and their purposes in the 'Args' section, but it does not provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific calendar event'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'pco_list_calendar_events' by specifying retrieval of a single event rather than listing multiple events.

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?

The description implies usage context by mentioning 'specific calendar event' and the error case for invalid IDs, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'pco_list_calendar_events' or provide guidance on prerequisites. This leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

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