Search AddEvent RSVP Attendees

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: return shape, pagination semantics, empty 'rsvps' array meaning 'no matches, not an error', and explicit statement that it works only on previously created RSVPs. This is rich supplementary transparency.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose, a concise Args list, Returns object, examples, and an explicit anti-use case. Every section earns its place, and the formatting makes it easy to scan. Despite its length, it avoids redundancy and is optimally organized for an AI agent.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and a moderately complex search tool, the description is complete: it documents all parameters with meaning, specifies the full return structure, clarifies edge-case behavior (empty results), and provides usage examples. There are no significant gaps.

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 already describes all 7 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping related parameters (calendar_ids/event_ids), clarifying the meaning of attending ('Filter by response'), and giving real-world examples that illustrate parameter combinations. This exceeds baseline but does not need to fully compensate for schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Searches RSVP attendees you've previously created.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from mutation tools ('Does NOT create or modify RSVPs') and from the single-record sibling addevent_get_rsvp, making the scope unmistakable.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit and actionable. The description includes a direct 'Don't use when' section pointing to addevent_get_rsvp as cheaper when attendee_id is already known, and provides concrete examples showing when to use filters like attending and event_ids. This exceeds simple context and gives clear decision rules.

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