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

Annotations already declare readOnly/destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: invited, declined, waitlisted and maybe guests are never returned and appear only in not_going_count, which prevents an agent from misreading absence as disinterest. It does not cover pagination or how maxResults affects the count.

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?

Front-loads the core definition, then layers the reporting and interpretation constraints in a logical order with no filler sentences. 'Read-only' merely restates the annotation and could be dropped, and the population-exclusion clause is dense but earns its place.

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?

Return shape is covered by the output schema, and the description handles the tricky semantics of exclusion counting well. For a 5-parameter tool with 20% schema coverage, however, it leaves the agent guessing about eventId, paging via maxResults, and which of connectionId/companyId selects the integration.

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 only 20% across 5 parameters, so the description needs to compensate and largely does not. Only agentName is addressed ('Pass your agent_name'); eventId, maxResults, companyId and the nested connectionId wrapper are never explained, and with zero required parameters the agent has no signal that eventId is the operative selector.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Lists the people GOING to one Luma event') and enumerates the returned fields (name, email, LinkedIn, headline, check-in status). It implicitly separates itself from connection_list_luma_events by scoping to guests of a single event, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives concrete operating instructions: 'Pass your agent_name', report the count as 'N going of M on the list', and never treat a missing person as not interested. It also frames the guests as candidates to qualify rather than qualified investors. What it lacks is explicit routing guidance on when to call this versus connection_list_luma_events or the enrichment tools.

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