Check attendee RSVPs

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, which cover the primary behavioral traits. The description adds no additional context about side effects or edge cases (e.g., what happens if the event is not found). Given the annotations, the bar is lower, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate since no extra credit is earned.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured. It leads with the main purpose in a single sentence, followed by a clear list of arguments. There is no unnecessary information, and the format is easy to parse.

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?

The tool description, combined with the presence of an output schema, covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameters, and expected output. Minor details like error handling or output format are not explicitly stated, but these are likely covered by the output schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description provides meaningful explanations for all four parameters directly in the Args section. Each parameter (event_id, calendar_id, attendee_emails, account) is described with its purpose and source, which compensates for the schema's complete lack of descriptions. This fully clarifies the parameters' roles.

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 clearly states the function: reporting attendee statuses (accepted, declined, not yet answered). It is specific about the resource (event invitation) and the action (report). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'respond_to_event' or 'add_attendee', though the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios such as 'use when you need to check RSVP status' or 'do not use for modifying attendee responses'. The purpose implies a read-only use case, but the lack of explicit when-to-use instructions limits its usefulness.

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