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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds value beyond them: the auth prerequisite (personal connector token) and an explicit privacy boundary (no phone, email, surname, account id or photo). That privacy disclosure is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose and ordering first, then auth/scope, then return shape and privacy limits. No filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it returns, the auth requirement, the scope restriction, and the downstream handoff to event_accept.

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?

Zero parameters, so no parameter semantics are needed; baseline applies. The description instead characterizes the returned rows (first name, here-for line, timestamp, requestId), which is useful but belongs to output rather than input semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists the hellos waiting on the person at an event') plus ordering ('newest first'), and scopes it to the caller's own pending hellos. The mention of requestId that 'event_accept takes' also positions it relative to that sibling.

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 clear context for use: requires a personal connector token and returns only the caller's own pending hellos, which is a real selection constraint. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with siblings like event_guest_requests or event_inbox, so it is a 4 rather than a 5.

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