Get event attendees

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

The annotations already include 'readOnlyHint: true', indicating the tool is safe and read-only. The description does not add any behavioral context beyond this, such as whether the result is a list, pagination behavior, ordering, or response format. Without an output schema, the agent lacks critical information about what the tool returns.

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 at 7 words, which is efficient. It front-loads the core purpose. However, it is not a full sentence (noun phrase), which slightly reduces readability. It earns its place but could be improved with a verb.

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 the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is too minimal. An agent needs to know that the tool returns a list of members, pagination details, and any relevant filtering. The current description does not provide completeness for effective use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (event, guild, limit), so the description does not need to add more. The tool description itself does not elaborate on parameter meanings or usage tips, but the schema is sufficient. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Members who marked themselves interested in an event' clearly identifies the resource (event attendees) and the action (getting those members). The name 'get_event_attendees' reinforces this. However, it uses a noun phrase instead of a verb phrase like 'Get a list of members interested in an event', which slightly reduces clarity. The description effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_event_subscriptions' or 'get_event'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention whether this tool lists only members who expressed interest versus actual attendees, nor does it suggest when to use 'list_event_subscriptions' instead. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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