List guests

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool is list-style, paginated, and backed by a GET endpoint (implying a safe read), but it says nothing about rate limits, default page size, or the shape of returned records.

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 compact sentences with the core operation front-loaded and the endpoint mapping trailing; nothing is redundant or padded.

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 tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: scope, pagination, and filter dimensions. It stops short of describing return contents or default page sizing, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 already defines page, limit, stage, search, and priority with defaults and enum values. The description only echoes the filter names and adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (guests in the pipeline) plus its scoping traits (paginated, filterable) and even maps to the underlying endpoint GET /api/v1/guests. It is unambiguous, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling tools (add_guest, update_guest_stage), which is the only thing separating it from a 5.

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 names the filter dimensions (stage, priority, free-text search) which implies when to reach for it, but it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing versus alternatives such as get_analytics_summary. Usage has to be inferred.

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