List guests

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination, filterability, and that it wraps a GET endpoint, which implies read-only behavior. However, it does not mention what is returned (e.g., format, default ordering), rate limits, or other behavioral nuances. It is adequate but not rich.

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 main verb and resource, followed by additional capabilities. No redundant words or fluff. The description is concise and well-structured.

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 list tool with a fully described schema (all 5 params documented, enums provided) and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It covers pagination and filters, and the sibling context is clear. It omits some details like response shape, but for a list endpoint this is a minor 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions stage, priority, and free-text search but does not add meaning beyond the schema. It aligns with page/limit via 'paginated' but does not clarify defaults or syntax beyond what the schema already states.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'List guests in the pipeline', with specific attributes (paginated, filterable by stage, priority, search). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_guest or update_guest_stage by focusing solely on listing. The mention of the GET endpoint reinforces its read-only nature.

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 this tool is for retrieving/filtering guest data through 'List guests in the pipeline' and mentions pagination/filters. It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. Sibling tools like add_guest are obviously different, but there is no explicit exclusion.

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