list_organization_attendees

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that the tool lists attendees. It does not mention pagination (despite the 'continuation' parameter), filtering by status or changed_since, or any side effects. The presence of these parameters suggests more complex behavior that is not disclosed, leaving the agent with an incomplete picture.

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, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and scope. It is concise without unnecessary fluff, but its brevity contributes to missing details. It earns a 4 for efficiency, though the lack of elaboration is a trade-off.

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?

Given the tool has four parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description is notably incomplete. It does not clarify parameter meanings, usage context, or when to choose this over similar tools. While the output schema exists, the description fails to provide the contextual information an agent needs to call the tool correctly, especially with zero schema descriptions.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any of the four parameters (organization_id, status, continuation, changed_since). The description only says 'List attendees,' giving no meaning to the parameters beyond their names and defaults. For instance, the semantics of 'status' (default 'attending') and 'continuation' are entirely unexplained, making it difficult for an agent to use them correctly.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'attendees across all events in an organization,' which precisely defines its scope and implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling 'list_event_attendees' that targets a single event. The phrase 'across all events' makes the organization-wide scope explicit.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_event_attendees' or 'get_attendee_details'. There is no mention of appropriate contexts, exclusions, or selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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