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

Annotations already declare readOnly/destructive status, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: pagination size (up to 200 per page), the next_cursor round-trip pattern, and the authorization requirement (user's Cotlet API key with access to this app). It stops short of describing edge cases like what happens with no guests or invalid cursors.

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 return payload before the filters, pagination, and auth note, and every sentence is short. The first two sentences partially duplicate each other ('RSVP status, check-in and Guest Questionnaire answers' vs. 'RSVP status, whether they are checked in and their answers'), which is minor waste.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returned fields, and it does so plus pagination and auth requirements. It is nearly complete for a read-only list tool, missing only guidance on sibling selection (past vs current guests).

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the status filter and cursor mechanics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema (e.g., no clarification of how status values like 'pending' interact with 'invited').

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 ('Guests of an event') and enumerates the fields returned (RSVP status, check-in, questionnaire answers), so the agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the obvious sibling partiful_list_past_guests, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It gives some operational guidance ('Filter by status to see only pending guests or only the ones going'), which implies a use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as list_past_guests or export_guest_list. Usage is only implied.

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