List guests

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, and the description still adds real behavior: the host-scoped visibility ('the guest list the host sees'), the sort order ('oldest RSVP first'), and the subtlety that 'going' includes guests approved on a Guest Approval event. It does not discuss pagination behavior beyond the schema's cursor field.

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?

Two short sections with the resource and its returned fields front-loaded, followed by cross-references to related tools. Dense but every sentence carries information; nothing repeats structured fields verbatim.

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, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so thoroughly — field list, ordering, totals, and host visibility. The only mild gap is how limit and cursor interact across pages, which is left entirely to the schema.

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 baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning: guest_id is explained as the identifier to pass to approve_guests and check_in_guests, and 'total counts the guests that match the filters' clarifies how the total relates to the status/checked_in filters. It also disambiguates the 'going' enum value, which the schema alone 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?

The description names the resource precisely (guests of an event) and enumerates what is returned: RSVP status, check-in, party size with plus-one names, RSVP note, questionnaire answers. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling list_past_guests or export_guest_list, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

'Hosts only' provides a permission prerequisite, and the note that guest_id feeds approve_guests and check_in_guests hints at downstream workflows. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this tool over list_past_guests or export_guest_list, leaving the usage context implied rather than stated.

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