Export guest list

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, but the description still adds a lot: the file arrives as inline csv text rather than a link, it carries the column list, and it deliberately excludes guest ids, emails and phone numbers. It stops short of noting size limits or truncation behavior for very large guest lists, which is the one real gap.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the artifact identity and the button equivalence. Slightly dense—the column list is long—but each sentence carries distinct information and none is filler.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description fully describes the return payload: csv file text, the row count, and a suggested filename. Combined with the column and exclusion notes, an agent knows exactly what it will receive.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining that Status is Partiful's own label (e.g. 'Approved on a Guest Approval event') and that the default is all statuses. It adds meaning about what the enum values actually render as, which the schema does not.

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+resource (export the guest list as CSV) and pins down the exact artifact: the same file the host's Export CSV button downloads. It also distinguishes itself from list_guests by flagging that this file has no guest ids, so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly redirects to a sibling: 'for guest ids use list_guests', and names the audience constraint 'Hosts only'. It also states the selection condition ('for the chosen RSVP statuses'), so when-to-use and the alternative are both covered.

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