evite_list_guests

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

The description explicitly identifies the operation as a GET and readOnlyHint is true, so the safety profile is consistent. It adds some context by previewing returned fields (name, RSVP response, head counts, delivery status), but it doesn't disclose pagination, auth requirements, or response envelope details.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the action, endpoint, and representative output fields with no filler. 'and more' is slightly vague, but the description remains tightly scoped and easy to scan.

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 simple read-only listing tool, the description plus schema covers the required event_id, optional view, and likely output content. It is incomplete around response shape, pagination, and authentication, and there is no output schema to fill those gaps, so the agent must infer some call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains event_id and the compact/full view behavior. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the endpoint placeholder, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it 'List[s] the guests for an Evite event' and names the endpoint plus returned fields. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as evite_rsvp_summary or evite_get_event, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 intended use is implied by the verb and resource—call this when you need the guest list, RSVP responses, head counts, or delivery status for an event. However, the description never states when not to use it or points to an alternative like evite_rsvp_summary for summarized RSVP data.

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