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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to be safe. The description adds the 200-item limit and the specific data fields returned, which is useful behavioral context. It does not disclose ordering, pagination, or filtering behavior, but for a simple read-only list this is a minor gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The action, resource, limit, and return fields are all present, and every word earns its place.

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 simple 2-parameter schema, full schema coverage, and safety annotations, the description covers the essential return information in the absence of an output schema. It could mention sorting or pagination, but 'up to 200' and the field list make the tool sufficiently understandable.

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%, with both eventId and org documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('event speakers'), and the scope (up to 200), and enumerates the returned fields (name, title, company, session titles, confirmation state, contact id). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_attendees or list_sessions, which target different resource types.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, exclusions, or sibling tools such as list_attendees, get_contact, or list_sessions. The only clue is the resource name, which is insufficient for an agent choosing among many speaker- and event-related tools.

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