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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the list cap of 25 while counts are true totals, and the note about empty lists for upcoming editions. This enriches the agent's understanding of what to expect, going 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 compact (2 sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the resource, the second provides critical usage and behavior notes. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool's moderate complexity (one required param, one optional), the absence of an output schema, and the fact that the description covers purpose, usage, and behavior nuances, the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It addresses potential pitfalls (empty lists, list caps) and provides a clear parameter source, leaving nothing essential uncovered.

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 the schema documents 'slug' and 'facet_limit' with examples and ranges. However, the description adds crucial semantic value by explaining the list cap behavior tied to these parameters (e.g., counts vs. lists) and the practical nuance about empty lists. This exceeds the baseline of 3 by providing interpretative guidance on the parameters' effects.

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 tool returns 'one conference edition' with its associated entities (speakers, sponsors, exhibitors, sessions), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_conferences. It uses a specific verb 'get' and names the resource and scope, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly provides a usage instruction: 'Take the slug from search_conferences', which tells the agent exactly how to obtain the required parameter. It also sets expectations about empty lists being normal for upcoming editions, guiding the agent's interpretation of responses. This is clear and actionable.

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