Show Webinar Audience

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, and the description adds real value on top: it discloses pagination (paginated list keyed to page_info.end_cursor per the schema), the shape of the returned payload, and the exact permission requirement including the delegation scope. It stops short of stating rate limits or whether the list is raw registrants vs. aggregated attendees.

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 functional sentence is front-loaded and dense with useful detail in a single sentence. The trailing permission block is longer and largely boilerplate, but it is genuinely required for a scoped read operation and does not bury the purpose statement.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return content and does so concretely (attendance status, engagement metrics, attribution, histograms) while covering pagination and auth. Minor gaps remain around ordering, list size expectations, and which webinar-scoped read tool to prefer.

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 100%, so all four parameters (cursor, account, per_page, webinar_id) are already documented in the schema, including the max of 100 and the cursor source. The description adds no parameter-level semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Retrieve audience data for a webinar") and enumerates exactly what comes back: registrants with attendance status, engagement metrics, attribution data, and per-attendee histograms. That distinguishes it reasonably from list_webinar_registrations, get_webinar_histograms and get_webinar_analytics, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'for a webinar' and by the required permission block, which tells the agent this is an authorized read for a specific webinar. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing against the closely related sibling tools (list_webinar_registrations, get_webinar_histograms).

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