eb_event_attendees

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

The annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' already signals a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it discloses an access requirement ('requires access to that event') and recommends a polling pattern with 'changed_since', which qualify as useful behavioral context (auth needs, usage pattern).

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 two concise sentences totaling 18 words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second offers a practical parameter tip. No filler 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 is a simple read-only list operation with four parameters and no output schema. The description covers the essential context: what it lists, organizer access, and a recommended streaming strategy. Pagination is hinted at by the 'continuation' schema parameter, so the lack of explicit mention is acceptable. It does not explicitly mention the 'status' filter, but the schema enum is self-explanatory.

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 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The description adds semantic value by explaining the purpose of 'changed_since' ('to poll incrementally'), which goes beyond the schema's definition. It does not elaborate on 'status' or 'continuation', but those are already reasonably described by the schema's enum and description.

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 begins with 'List a single event's attendees', a specific verb ('List') and resource ('a single event's attendees'). The qualifier 'organizer-side' clarifies the intended audience, and the focus on 'a single event' distinguishes this from sibling tools like eb_org_attendees.

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 provides clear context: it targets a single event and requires organizer access. It also offers a concrete usage tip: 'Use changed_since to poll incrementally instead of re-reading the whole list.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it does not fully achieve the 'explicit when/when-not/alternatives' level.

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