get_pending_cohost_request_for_event

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). The description adds valuable behavioral specifics: it returns null when no request is pending, and describes the response structure. It does not fully detail error handling or authentication, but the extra context meets the bar for a well-annotated tool.

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, front-loaded with the main action and followed by the return behavior. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundant details or fluff.

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 output schema exists, so return values are already documented. The description adds the conditional null behavior and confirms the response fields, which is sufficient for this simple read-only tool. It doesn't cover edge cases like invalid event IDs, but that is not necessary given the tool's straightforward nature and existing 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?

The input schema already fully describes both parameters (event_id and fields) with dot-path options listed. The description does not add new parameter semantics; it only mentions the response fields, which are already in the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the description provides no additional value here, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('pending cohost invitation'), the scope ('for a Partiful event by ID'), and a conditional ('if the current user has one outstanding'). It also describes the return value and null case, making it distinct from sibling tools despite their similar names.

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 implies when to use this tool: to retrieve a pending cohost invitation for a specific event. It provides clear context, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, even though sibling tools like get_cohost_requested_events exist. The narrow purpose makes the use case obvious, but a 5 would require explicit 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.