get_all_event_restrictions

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

Annotations already indicate a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful context by noting it operates across all user events and returns a list of per-event restriction records, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't mention potential pagination or data freshness, but for a simple read-only tool this is acceptable.

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 two concise sentences with no redundant information. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional param, strong annotations, and an output schema), the description is complete enough. It specifies the scope and return type, while the schema and annotations cover the remaining details.

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 sole parameter 'fields' is fully documented in the schema with descriptions, including available fields. The description does not add additional parameter semantics, so it matches the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 tool gets restrictions across all events, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_event_restrictions, which is presumably for a single event.

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 phrase 'across all of your Partiful events' provides clear context for when to use this tool (when needing restrictions from multiple events). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is clear enough from the description and sibling names.

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