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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: pagination mechanics ('Pages hold up to 500 attendees; pass next_cursor back as cursor') and an auth requirement ('Needs the user's Cotlet API key with access to this app'). Missing rate-limit details only.

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 filters, pagination, and auth in logical order. Every sentence carries information; slightly more verbose than strictly necessary but no 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by listing the fields returned. Combined with pagination, filtering, and auth notes, an agent has what it needs to call the tool correctly; only return-format edge cases are unaddressed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters well, which sets the baseline at 3. The description clarifies that checked_in=false surfaces 'who has not arrived' and restates pagination, adding marginal value but largely duplicating the schema.

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 attendees of one event') and enumerates the returned fields (email, company, ticket type, audience type, check-in status). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling whova_list_registrations, leaving potential ambiguity about which list tool to pick.

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?

Provides filtering guidance for parameters ('Filter by ticket type or audience type, or by check-in status to see who has not arrived'), which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives routing (e.g., versus list_registrations), so tool-selection guidance is only implied.

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