connects_event

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds useful scope boundaries—'visible attendee directory' and no credential export—but it says nothing about pagination behavior, data freshness, or other operational traits, so it adds only modest context beyond the annotations.

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 two short sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add one clarifying exclusion. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema fields.

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?

Annotations and the presence of an output schema reduce the need for the description to explain return values or safety behavior, and the core dual behavior is covered. However, it omits how `query`, `limit`, and `offset` apply to the attendee directory and gives no explicit routing cue away from `connects_events`, leaving moderate gaps for an agent.

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 should compensate by explaining parameters. It does map the `view` enum to 'details' versus 'attendees', but it offers no guidance on `query`, `limit`, `offset`, or `event_id`, leaving most parameter semantics to inference from names and schema constraints.

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 that this tool returns event details or a visible attendee directory, and it adds an explicit exclusion for registration, ticket, and QR credential export. It is distinguishable from the plural sibling connects_events, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list'.

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 use when single-event details or attendee visibility are needed, and it provides a negative boundary with 'No registration, ticket, or QR credential export.' However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly say when to prefer connects_events, leaving routing mostly to inference.

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