signupgenius_get_public_signup

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: no SignUpGenius auth is required, it works on public sheets not created by the user, and it returns only metadata rather than slots. It does not contradict the annotations, though it could mention error cases or rate limits to reach a 5.

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 compact and front-loaded: first sentence states the action and URL format, second summarizes the return payload and auth context, third routes to the sibling tool. Every sentence contributes essential information with no wasted words.

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-only lookup with rich schema coverage cherry-picked details, this description is complete. It lists the returned metadata categories, clarifies authentication requirements, and points to the sibling for slot data, so an agent can invoke it correctly without additional information.

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 parameter description already explains the URL and slug format thoroughly. The tool description reinforces this with an example URL pattern, but it adds little semantic value beyond the schema, so a baseline 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?

Description starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Look up a SignUpGenius sign-up by its public URL or slug' and enumerates what metadata is returned. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by stating it returns metadata only and pointing to signupgenius_list_slots for dates/times.

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 gives clear when-to-use context: no auth needed and works for sheets the user did not create. It explicitly names the sibling alternative, signupgenius_list_slots, for date/time availability, which removes ambiguity about which tool an agent should select.

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