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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description only needs to add context. It contributes the underlying API endpoint (GET /guests) and the filterable dimensions, but says nothing about default paging behavior, maximum page size, or what a result row contains — details the annotations don't cover.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the filter axes. The API endpoint citation is marginally useful but adds little for an agent that already has the tool name.

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 9-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description should say something about what comes back (guest objects? pagination envelope?). It covers the input side adequately but leaves the return shape entirely unspecified, which is a real gap given the absence of an output 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 in structured data. The description merely summarizes the same filter categories (booking, departure, phone, name, cancellation) and omits the id, limit and offset parameters entirely, adding no syntax or format 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+resource ('List guests (participants)') plus the filter axes, which separates it from trekksoft_get_guest and the other list_* siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming 'get_guest' as the single-record alternative, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 presence of filters implies when to reach for this tool (bulk/lookup with criteria vs. fetching one guest), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no mention of the trekksoft_get_guest alternative. Usage must be inferred from the parameter list.

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