signupgenius_list_signedupfor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds one useful scoping nuance — that these are sign-ups the user personally joined, not ones they created or were invited to — but says nothing about return shape, pagination, or volume.

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 with no filler. For a zero-parameter listing tool the scope qualifier is the one piece of information that matters, and it is stated immediately.

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?

With no output schema and a trivial input, the description's main remaining duty is disambiguation from near-identical siblings like legacy_get_my_signups and list_invited, which it does not address. It is adequate but leaves the agent guessing among overlapping list tools.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to document; baseline 4 applies. No misleading parameter claims are made.

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 gives a specific verb ("List") and a clearly scoped resource ("sign-ups the user has personally signed up for"), which distinguishes it from the created/invited variants by ownership. However, it does not name or distinguish itself from the close sibling signupgenius_legacy_get_my_signups, which sounds like it may return the same thing.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many sibling list tools (list_invited, list_created_all, legacy_get_my_signups). The agent must infer selection purely from the phrase "personally signed up for," with no explicit alternative routing.

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