connects_event

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by clarifying that only *visible* attendees are returned and that sensitive credential-related data is not exported. This goes beyond the annotations and does not contradict them.

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 only two sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded and the key limitation stated immediately after. There is no filler or repetition of schema or annotation details. It is structurally concise, though it could carry more semantic value.

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 readOnly/idempotent annotations and an output schema present, the description adequately covers the tool's scope and exclusions. It does not need to explain return values, and the input schema covers pagination and filter parameters. The main gaps are minor and mostly about parameter semantics.

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 does not explain most parameters. The phrase 'details or visible attendee directory' loosely maps to the `view` enum, but event_id, query, limit, and offset semantics are entirely absent. This leaves the agent reliant on the bare schema for 5 parameters.

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 identifies the resource (a single event) and the two available views: details or visible attendee directory. It also sets boundaries by excluding registration, ticket, and QR credential export, which helps distinguish it from broader event-related tools. It is clear but does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 phrase 'Event details or visible attendee directory' gives clear context for when to use this tool. The sentence 'No registration, ticket, or QR credential export' explicitly states what not to use it for. It lacks named sibling alternatives, but the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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