get_my_rsvps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds meaningful context about the inclusivity of the result set (invited or RSVPed, any status/time) and the richness of data returned, which goes beyond the annotation safety profile. It does not mention potential pagination or rate limits, but the output schema covers return structure.

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 sentences, the first immediately states the main purpose and output. The second sentence is dense with sibling comparisons but each mention is necessary for disambiguation. No fluff or repetition; every clause 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 simple parameter structure (one optional field selector), rich output schema, and thorough annotations, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how it differs from alternatives. No critical gaps for an agent to select and invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'fields' parameter, so the schema fully documents its syntax and options. The description highlights that the tool returns the 'richest per-event data' and lists example fields, which aligns with but does not exceed the schema's list of available fields. Thus baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with resource 'every Partiful event you've been invited to or RSVPed to', clearly stating scope ('any status, any time period') and output ('events array with richest per-event data'). It distinguishes from siblings by naming exact alternatives and their differing scopes.

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 contrasts with sibling tools: 'Broader than get_my_upcoming_events_for_home_page/get_my_past_events_for_home_page', 'distinct from get_published_events', and 'distinct from get_discoverable_events/get_my_saved_events/get_my_followed_events' with reasons. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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