calendar_get_event_attendees

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns email, display name, and response status per attendee, and requires Calendars.Read permission. This goes beyond annotations by describing the return payload and permission requirement, though it doesn't detail pagination or edge cases.

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 three sentences with no redundancy: the first sentence delivers the core function, the second explains the return payload, and the third provides usage guidance and an alternative. All content 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the return fields (email, display name, response status), the permission requirement, and when to use it over the sibling. It is fully sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 schema fully describes the single parameter meeting_id with a clear description, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score 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 states the tool lists who was invited to a calendar event and their response status (accepted, declined, tentative, no response), using a specific verb and resource. It clearly differentiates from sibling calendar_get_event by focusing on attendee responses, making the purpose 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 explicitly says to use this when the question is about who is coming, and mentions that calendar_get_event returns the same list alongside other details, providing a direct alternative. It also notes the required permission Calendars.Read, which is useful context.

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