get_guests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool fetches guests and supports search, which is useful context beyond annotations, but it does not disclose details like pagination behavior or response structure. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no redundancy or filler. It earns its place by clearly conveying the core function and search capability.

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 read-only list/search tool with three optional parameters covered by the schema and strong annotations, the description is largely complete. It clarifies the resource (guest profiles) and search capability. However, it could be more complete by mentioning that it returns a list of guests or by directing users to get_guest_by_id for a single record, given that sibling tool exists.

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 the schema fully documents all three parameters (skip, limit, query). The description mentions 'Search by name or email,' which aligns with the query parameter but adds no additional meaning or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is justified.

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 'Fetch guest database/profiles' identifies a specific verb and resource. It clearly indicates this tool retrieves guest data. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool get_guest_by_id, though the plural 'guests' and search capability imply a list/search operation.

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 by stating 'Search by name or email,' which suggests when to use it (when you need to find guests by those criteria). However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative (e.g., get_guest_by_id) to choose for specific scenarios.

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