list_event_attendees

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It communicates that this is a read-style list operation and exposes the meaning of 'status' values, but it says nothing about pagination via continuation, the semantics of changed_since, or how results are filtered by default. These are meaningful behavioral gaps for a tool with four parameters.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose and return content, and the second adds the status filter values. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description still leaves important call semantics unexplained: how continuation works, what changed_since means, and what the default status behavior implies. For a tool with four parameters and no annotations, this is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly in all intended scenarios.

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 for the parameter definitions. It only explains the status values; event_id is left to inference from the tool name, while continuation and changed_since receive no semantic explanation. This is only partial compensation for the schema 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 clearly states a specific action and resource: 'List attendees registered for an event' and even summarizes the returned fields ('profile, barcode, and answer fields'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on organization-level attendees or event teams. The event-level scope and attendee focus are immediately recognizable.

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 scope 'registered for an event' implies when the tool should be used, but it never names alternatives such as list_event_team_attendees or list_organization_attendees, nor does it state when not to use them. It provides contextual scope but no explicit routing or exclusions.

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