List signups and RSVPs

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful context about the scope (only open sign-ups) and the output structure (progress counts), going beyond what annotations alone convey. No contradiction.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with a concrete example. Every word contributes value, and there is no 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?

For a parameterless, read-only list tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke it. It explains the tool's purpose and expected output without needing extra details.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description need not add parameter details.

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 it lists open sign-ups, RSVPs, and volunteer slots, and even includes the progress format ('53/103 Items'). This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_polls or list_forms.

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 the use case: seeing what still needs filling in signups/RSVPs/volunteer slots. However, it does not explicitly contrast with related sibling tools such as list_volunteer_hours or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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