Get Luma guest

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and open-world. The description adds that the response contains personal and ticket-order details, which provides some behavioral context beyond annotations. However, no mention of permissions, data sensitivity limitations, rate limits, or potential side effects.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, every word adds value. No redundancy or verbosity.

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?

The description mentions the kind of data returned (personal info, ticket-order details) but is vague. With no output schema, more detail would help. It does not explain the purpose of event_id or provide examples. For a two-parameter tool with moderate complexity, it is minimally complete.

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 50%: the 'id' parameter has a description that is already clear, but the description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema. The 'event_id' parameter has no description in the schema, and the description does not explain what event_id is or how to find it. No value added over 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('complete details for one event guest') and lists multiple identifiers (guest ID, ticket key, guest key, or email), making the purpose clear. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_guests' which returns multiple guests.

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 implies usage for retrieving a single guest's details, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_guests' or 'registration_summary'. No when-not-to-use or exclusions are provided.

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