List Luma guests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds important behavioral context: guest data may include personal information and must be used only for user-requested operations. This goes beyond annotations by disclosing data sensitivity and usage restrictions.

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 with no redundancy. First sentence states the action; second adds critical privacy instruction. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and existing sibling tools, the description covers the basic purpose and a warning, but omits details on pagination, filtering, output shape, and relationship to siblings. It is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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 0%, so the description must clarify parameter meaning. It does not mention any parameter (event_id, approval_status, pagination_limit, pagination_cursor). The description adds no value for parameter semantics.

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?

Purpose is clearly stated as 'List guests for an event.' The verb 'list' and resource 'guests' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like list_events (events vs guests) and get_event (single event), but does not explicitly differentiate from registration_summary.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The only usage note is a privacy caveat ('use only for event operations requested by the user'), but no context for when to choose this over sibling tools like registration_summary or list_events.

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