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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds behavioral detail beyond that: page size (up to 500), the cursor round-trip, and the API-key access requirement. Auth and pagination context are meaningful additions, though nothing is said about what the response shape is beyond the listed fields.

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 resource and scope, and every sentence carries operational info. There is minor redundancy: 'newest first' appears twice across the opening sentences, which is the only thing preventing a 5.

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 usefully compensates by describing the returned record fields, ordering, page size, and cursor mechanics. An agent has enough to call and paginate correctly; only the exact response envelope remains unspecified.

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%, so a baseline of 3 applies, but the description adds value by explaining the pagination flow (pass the returned next_cursor back as cursor) and the incremental intent of 'since'. This goes slightly beyond the terse schema property descriptions.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Lists registration orders of one event') and even enumerates the returned fields (registrant, ticket type, order date). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_attendees or list_sessions by focusing on orders. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the nearest sibling (whova_list_attendees), keeping it at a 4.

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 an implied usage scenario for the date filter ('get only what is new since your last check'), which is a genuine incremental-sync hint. However, it never states when not to use it and never names an alternative tool, so the routing guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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