ghl_calendar_resource_get

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context such as the specific API version to use, deprecation status, and OAuth scopes, which go beyond the structured 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 reasonably concise, front-loading the main purpose. The deprecation warning and version details, while important, add some wordiness. Still, most sentences serve a clear purpose.

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 operation, the description covers version, deprecation, scopes, and endpoint. No output schema exists, but the response is standard for a resource get. Annotations cover safety. Slightly incomplete due to lack of return value description.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description clarifies how parameters map to the URL path (resourceType, id) but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. 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 Resource' and 'Get calendar resource by ID (Services V1)', using a specific verb+resource pattern. It is easily distinguishable from siblings like create, delete, list, and update.

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 explicitly warns against using Version: v3 for resource endpoints and notes deprecation, which guides correct usage. It also specifies the endpoint and OAuth scopes, but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools beyond noting the deprecated variant.

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