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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing that results contain personal data (name, emails, phones, address, notes, interactions) and that results are paginated one page at a time — context an agent needs for privacy handling and iteration.

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 tight sentences with zero filler: the resource and PII payload come first, then filters and pagination. Every clause earns its place and nothing is buried.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so reasonably by naming the returned PII fields and the paging model. It is complete enough to call correctly given 100% schema coverage and read-only annotations, though it never states the pagination cursor semantics itself (deferred to the schema).

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%, so every parameter is already documented with syntax (e.g. regex matching for name, next_skip chaining for skip, 1-100 for limit). The description's filter summary largely restates that, so it sits at the baseline of 3 without adding format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource ("List guests") plus scope ("one page at a time") and the filterable dimensions, so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like tokeet_get_guest or tokeet_get_guest_by_email, though the list-vs-get distinction is inferable.

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 description names the available filter axes (partial name, booking source/channel, has/hasn't bookings), which implies when each filter is useful, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives such as get_guest_by_email for a single lookup. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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