list_event_team_attendees

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden, but it only says 'List attendees...' and offers no detail about pagination via the continuation parameter, scope limits, ordering, or what data is returned. The read-only nature is implied by 'List,' but the tool's behavior beyond that basic operation is not disclosed.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and it remains appropriately short for a simple list operation.

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 the tool is simple and has an output schema, the description omits key context: no mention of pagination via continuation, no explanation of the event_id + team_id relationship, and no guidance on order or filtering behavior. For a no-annotation tool with 0% schema description coverage, this is insufficiently complete.

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, but it only clarifies that attendees belong to a 'specific team,' which maps weakly to team_id. It does not explain why event_id is required, how team and event scope interact, or what continuation means, leaving the agent to infer semantics from parameter names alone.

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 and resource: 'List attendees who belong to a specific team.' This is clear and non-tautological, and the 'specific team' scope helps differentiate it from broader attendee-listing siblings like list_event_attendees or list_organization_attendees. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it doesn't fully earn a 5.

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 a use case (when you need attendees filtered by team) but gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over list_event_attendees or organization-level attendees, and it does not mention prerequisites like needing an existing event team. There is no when-not-to-use or alternative routing.

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