Get my event participation

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the scope is bound to the authenticated viewer and a single event, and it enumerates the categories of data returned, which is valuable given there is no output schema. It stops short of describing error states or what an empty/non-participant response looks like.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the identity/scope of the call is front-loaded and the disambiguation against the sibling follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description is nearly complete: it defines who the data belongs to, which event, and what fields come back, compensating for the absent output schema. The only gap is the failure/edge path (non-participant, invalid event reference), which an agent would likely need.

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% and the single `event` parameter already documents accepted forms (URL, slug/euid, numeric id), so the description need not repeat it. The phrase "for one event" confirms cardinality (single, not list) but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (fetch) and a precisely enumerated resource set (participant status, activation, permissions, organisation pages, opportunities) scoped to the logged-in viewer and one event. It also names the sibling it is not, get_participant, calling out that the sibling returns someone else's public profile, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

"Fetch the logged-in viewer's own..." establishes the selecting condition (self vs. others) and the second sentence names the alternative explicitly with its distinguishing trait. What is missing is any note on prerequisites (e.g. must be authenticated/registered for the event) or what happens when the viewer is not a participant.

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