List Event Invitees

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint/idempotent/destructive profile, so the safety story is complete. The description adds useful behavior context — 'bounded opaque page_token retrieval' and required scopes — but leaves quota/caching semantics to the schema. This adds value beyond the annotations, which earns a 3 rather than a 4 since it does not elaborate on the bounds.

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?

Three short sentences with no waste; the scope requirement is front-loaded after purpose. Adequately sized, though the opening repeats the title verbatim.

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 9-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the retrieval model and auth scope. It is adequate but thin — it does not note pagination defaults, filter interaction, or return shape, and no output schema compensates.

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 89%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters richly (sort, count, email, status, account, all_pages, max_items, event_uuid, page_token). The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List Event Invitees') and adds scope domain ('Reads Calendly data'), which frames it against siblings. Does not explicitly differentiate from the closest sibling get_event_invitee, but the naming and 'data' framing make the read-list purpose clear.

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?

No explicit when/when-not guidance. The required scopes line ('scheduled_events:read') is a prerequisite rather than usage routing. It does not tell the agent when to prefer this over get_event_invitee or list_events.

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