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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the response is limited to aggregate counts and explicitly never exposes a guest list or contact info, which tells the agent what it can and cannot retrieve.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the id-sourcing instruction; the parenthetical clarifying count-only privacy is functional rather than filler. The field enumeration is slightly dense but each item is load-bearing for deciding whether this tool answers the agent's question.

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 one required string parameter, no output schema, and rich read-only annotations, the description supplies everything missing: the shape of the returned data, the privacy boundary on RSVP counts, and where to obtain the id. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is absent.

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% for the single event_id parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond that by explaining provenance and format of the id (a partiful.com/e/<id> path segment, or an id harvested from partiful_explore), which helps the agent construct a valid value rather than just name it.

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?

Specific verb (get full public detail) plus a precisely scoped resource (one Partiful event by id), with the returned payload enumerated: title, description, times, location, image, host names, RSVP counts. It is cleanly distinguishable from the sibling partiful_explore, which surfaces ids rather than full event detail.

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 states where the required event_id comes from — partiful_explore's results or the path segment of a partiful.com/e/<id> URL — which is the practical precondition for calling it. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. bulk/discovery cases), so it gives clear context without exclusions.

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