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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details: 'Requires event_id; you must be a host' and that results are ordered oldest first. This provides additional context beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 covering purpose, details, pairing, prerequisites, and read-only status. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key information. Efficient and clear.

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, but the description covers what is returned: count, who asked, tier, and oldest-first order. For a simple list tool, this is sufficient. Could mention response format but not necessary.

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?

The schema has only one parameter (event_id) with 0% description coverage. The description explains that event_id is required and that the user must be a host of that event, providing essential semantic context that the schema lacks.

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?

Clearly states the tool lists pending WAITLIST/approval requests on a live event, specifying details like how many, who, tier, and order (oldest first). Differentiates from sibling tools like approve_guest_request and deny_guest_request by explicitly pairing with them.

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 explicit when-to-use context: 'List the pending WAITLIST / approval requests on a live event you manage.' Also states prerequisites: 'Requires event_id; you must be a host.' and notes it is read-only. Pairs with approve/deny tools, guiding alternative actions.

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