Get event attendees

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which covers the safety profile. The description adds useful nuance that 'attendees' are self-declared interested members, not necessarily confirmed attendees. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like pagination behavior or whether the result is sorted, but the annotation lowers the burden.

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 extremely concise, using six words. It doesn't waste space, but it is a fragment that lacks a main verb, making it less effective than a complete sentence like 'Lists members who marked themselves interested in an event.' Despite the grammatical incompleteness, it is efficient.

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 simple read-only tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It explains the core concept but doesn't mention that it returns a list, how 'interested' is different from 'attending', or how to use it with event vs. guild parameters. Sibling differentiation is absent, which is a clear gap.

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%, with all three parameters (event, guild, limit) having descriptive text. The description's phrase 'marked themselves interested' adds nothing directly about the parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies given the schema's heavy lifting.

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 is a noun phrase ('Members who marked themselves interested in an event.') rather than an explicit verb phrase. It clarifies what 'attendees' means, but doesn't explicitly say the tool 'gets' or 'lists' them. The title provides the verb, so it's not tautological, but the description alone is vague about the action.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_events or get_event. No mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description only defines the concept, leaving the agent to infer when the tool is appropriate.

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