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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so safety semantics are covered. The description adds auth/membership requirements and the age-eligibility gate, which are not in the structured fields. It does not state what happens to related records on removal, a minor gap.

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?

Three tight sentences that front-load the action, then eligibility, then prerequisites. No redundant restatement of the tool name or title.

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 annotations covering safety and a fully documented 2-param schema, the description supplies the missing operational context: eligibility rules and auth requirements. Return-value behavior is unspecified, but no output schema exists, so a minor omission remains.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters fully described in the schema. The description's 'selected wedding' phrasing alludes to the wedding_id context but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (removes) and resource (guest) with scope (from the selected wedding) and an eligibility condition (recorded as 13 or older). An agent can distinguish this from update_my_guest and list_my_guests without opening schemas.

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?

Gives clear when-not conditions: guests under 13 or with unconfirmed ages are ineligible. It also states prerequisites (sign-in, Aisle membership). It stops short of naming update_my_guest as the alternative for ineligible guests, so not a full 5.

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