google_calendar_get_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed information' but doesn't disclose what that includes (e.g., attendees, time, description), whether it requires specific permissions, or how errors are handled for invalid event IDs. This leaves significant gaps for a read operation.

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, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential action.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, how to handle the optional calendarId, or potential error cases. Given the lack of structured data, more context about return values and usage constraints is needed.

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%, providing clear documentation for both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying an event ID is needed, which is already covered in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific event'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'google_calendar_get_events' (plural) which retrieves multiple events, leaving room for potential confusion about scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'google_calendar_get_events' for listing multiple events or 'google_calendar_find_free_time' for availability checks, nor does it specify prerequisites like needing an event ID.

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