evite_rsvp_summary

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context that the summary is 'Derived from the event guests endpoint' and includes head counts, but it does not disclose potential caveats such as pagination, data freshness, or error behavior. This is adequate but not richly transparent.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and adding only the key detail about what the summary includes. No filler or repetition of schema/annotation information.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the essential output content (RSVP counts and head counts) and data source. There is no output schema, so a bit more detail on the exact return structure would improve completeness, but the current level is sufficient for correct tool selection and basic invocation.

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 coverage is 100%: the event_id parameter is already described as 'Evite event id (event_id from evite_list_events).' The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource ('Get the RSVP summary for an Evite event') and explicitly enumerates the summary dimensions (yes/no/maybe/noReply plus adult/kid head counts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like evite_list_guests (raw list) and evite_rsvp (submitting a response).

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 when to use this tool: when you need aggregate RSVP counts rather than the full guest list or individual guest details. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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