get_attendees_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only reporting operation, but does not state that it returns aggregate counts, that it is non-mutating, or describe any pagination or data limits. The word 'summary' hints at behavior, but the opacity is a clear gap.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action and argument. The wording is tight and has no filler. It loses a point only because the brevity leaves out meaningful parameter explanation, which is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness one.

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 tool has a simple surface (2 params, 1 required) and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return shape. But it leaves filter_by entirely unexplained and gives no context about how summary reports differ from the many attendee-list siblings. It is minimally adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully explains event_ids as 'one or more' and 'comma-separated', but the filter_by parameter is completely undocumented—its possible values and default semantics remain opaque. Thus the description only partially compensates for the schema coverage gap.

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 a specific verb and resource: it retrieves an 'attendee summary report' for event IDs, which distinguishes it as a report rather than a raw attendee list. It does not explicitly compare against siblings like list_event_attendees or get_attendee_details, so it loses one point for lacking explicit sibling differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_event_attendees, list_organization_attendees, or get_attendee_details. The description implies usage for summary reporting across one or many events, but gives no preconditions, caveats, or exclusions, leaving selection to inference.

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