list_recipients

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses key behaviors not evident from the schema: pagination limit (max 50 per page), email masking for privacy, and the PRO plan requirement. It could add more (e.g., error handling), but it covers the most important operational traits.

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 compact yet comprehensive: a single sentence states the core purpose, followed by three short, high-value clauses covering pagination, privacy, and plan requirement. No filler words or redundancy.

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?

The tool has a simple schema with 3 params and no output schema. The description explains what the tool does, key operational behavior (pagination, masking, plan), and the status filter context. It doesn't describe return format explicitly, but the purpose statement implies the response includes recipient info and status, which is sufficient for a simple list tool.

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 coverage is 100% with meaningful descriptions for all parameters (event_id, page, status). The description adds context about pagination and filtering but doesn't elaborate on parameter syntax beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 explicitly states the action ('List') and the resource ('recipients for a specific event'), and includes the specific certificate statuses (pending, accepted, refused). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_events or issue_certificates.

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?

It provides clear context: listing recipients for a specific event, with pagination and plan requirements. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is specific enough to avoid confusion with the listed siblings.

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