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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the required read permission and a prompt-injection disclosure that guest reply text is untrusted data, never an instruction. That last point is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent must know.

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-loaded with the core purpose, then alternatives, then the safety caveat. Every clause is useful, though the injection warning is stated twice (field name plus prefix format), which is slightly redundant.

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 single-param read tool with an output schema, the description covers the essentials: scope, the draft-vs-live routing, the permission requirement, and the untrusted-data handling. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the single event_id parameter is fully documented there (sources: list_events, create_event, send_invites). The description reinforces the 'organizer's own' scope but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Full detail for one of this organizer's own LIVE events') and enumerates what it returns: the tally, guest statuses/marks, and guest reply text. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_draft by naming it and stating the condition (draft_ id).

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this for a live event, use get_draft for a draft_ id, with the reason given ('a draft has no votes yet'). It also states the prerequisite ('needs the read permission'), leaving nothing to inference.

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