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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by enumerating the three possible return values (UNKNOWN, NO_SHOW, PRESENT), which tells the agent what to expect and how to handle the result, though it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or behavior when no attendance record exists.

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?

One sentence plus the endpoint path, with the core purpose and the return-value enum front-loaded. Nothing extraneous, and the endpoint reference is a compact way to anchor the resource hierarchy.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the definition covers the essentials and pre-answers the return-value question. It is slightly thin on the boundary case (what 'UNKNOWN' means or whether it is returned when no scan occurred) and on distinguishing this from evenium_get_guest_status.

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% – both event_id and contact_id document the Evenium id form and the `ext:` custom-id alternative in detail. The description mentions nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies; the schema does all the semantic work here.

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 resource and scope: the attendance/post status of one guest, with the exact enum of possible outcomes and the underlying endpoint path. It implicitly separates itself from the similarly named evenium_get_guest_status by framing this as 'attendance (post) status after the event', but never names that sibling to make the contrast explicit.

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?

The phrase 'after the event' implies the temporal condition under which this is the right tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no pointer to evenium_get_guest_status or evenium_update_guest_post_status as alternatives. Usage must be inferred from the tool name and sibling list.

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