track_rsvps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety profile is covered. The description adds the shape of the aggregation (three response buckets), which is useful, but it does not explain scoping (which events, whether it spans the whole wedding), freshness of the counts, or any auth requirements — meaningful gaps given it is a reporting call.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then parenthetically lists the return categories. No filler, though the parenthetical could be trimmed had the return shape been documented elsewhere.

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 no parameters, the description must carry the entire burden, and it does state the aggregation buckets. However, 'per event' is unexplained for a zero-argument tool — the agent cannot tell whether it returns all events, a default event, or requires context from elsewhere. Adequate but with a clear unresolved gap.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description effectively describes what the parameterless call yields by naming the three RSVP categories, which is the useful semantic content here.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get RSVP tracking summary') and enumerates the response buckets (attending, declined, not responded), so the agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings like get_rsvp_page or list_guests, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

No statement of when to call this versus get_rsvp_page, list_guests, or get_wedding_dashboard. There are no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no named alternative, so the agent must guess from the name alone.

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