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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing that both online and hand-recorded replies are included and that meal totals are counted only from attending guests. It doesn't cover pagination or ordering for large events.

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 statement of what is returned, followed by supporting detail and an auth note. Every sentence contributes; only slight redundancy between the first sentence's enumeration of statuses and the third sentence about reporting modes.

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, so the description covers return content (status, meal choice, custom question answers) well. Auth requirement (Cotlet API key with app access) is disclosed, which is useful given the sibling cotlet_request_access tool. Pagination behavior for large events is 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 coverage is 100% and the enum for status is documented in the schema with default 'all', so the description cannot add much. It mentions statuses implicitly ('attending, declined or has not replied') which maps to the enum but adds no new syntax.

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+resource+scope: 'RSVPs for one event: who is attending, declined or has not replied, with meal choices.' Clearly distinguishes from siblings like zola_record_rsvp (which writes) and zola_list_guests (broader guest list) by scoping to RSVP status per event.

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?

Usage is implied by the description (fetch RSVPs for one event) but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative. Given the sibling set includes zola_list_guests and zola_record_rsvp, an explicit routing statement would have helped.

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