get_card_project_guests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful payload context (font-size overrides tied to printed addressing) but says nothing about permissions, pagination, or behavior when a project has no guest groups.

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 that covers the resource, the scope, and the distinguishing detail with no filler. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must hint at the return shape; it does so by naming guest groups and font-size overrides. For a one-parameter read tool this is nearly complete, missing only edge-case behavior such as empty results or ordering.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already carries the semantics, including the pointer to list_card_projects as the source of the UUID. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond that, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: listing guest groups assigned to an invitation project, plus a notable detail (per-group font-size overrides for printed addressing). This clearly separates it from the write-side sibling set_card_project_guests, though it never names that counterpart explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied — the read counterpart to set_card_project_guests. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus listing all guests via list_guests, nor any prerequisite callout beyond the schema's mention of list_card_projects in the parameter description.

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