bored_by_participants

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered externally. The description adds nothing beyond the filter scope – no mention of what an 'activity' contains (type, price, accessibility) or whether multiple results can match. Given the annotation coverage, the lower bar makes a 3 appropriate.

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 with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a trivial one-parameter lookup, though that brevity comes at the cost of the missing routing information.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is close to sufficient, but it leaves the agent unable to distinguish it from bored_random/bored_by_type or to predict the shape of the returned activity. Minimal but serviceable.

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 one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents `participants`. The description's phrase 'specific number of participants' merely restates the property description and adds no constraint details such as valid range or integer vs. float behavior. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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?

"Get an activity for a specific number of participants" gives a verb (get) and resource (activity) plus a scope filter, but the name 'bored_by_participants' is vague and the description never distinguishes this from the equally available bored_random and bored_by_type siblings. An agent would have to infer that this filters by participant count rather than picking a random or categorized activity.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus bored_random or bored_by_type, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied guidance is the participant filter itself, which the agent must infer.

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