ghl_calendar_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds OAuth scopes (calendars.readonly) and endpoint details, which provide valuable behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with purpose. It includes endpoint and auth details in a structured manner. Minor redundancy (first line repeats title) but overall efficient.

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-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter reference, endpoint, and auth. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter (calendarId described as 'Calendar Id'). The description does not add new details about the parameter beyond restating it in context. 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 clearly states 'Get calendar by ID', specifying the action (get) and resource (calendar) with the method (by ID). The tool name and endpoint reinforce this, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ghl_calendar_list (list all) and ghl_calendar_create (create).

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 when you have a specific calendar ID but does not explicitly compare with alternative tools or state when not to use it. The endpoint and OAuth scopes provide some context, but no guidance on selecting among siblings is given.

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