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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: result cap of 100, soonest-first ordering, each row carries counts and a last-verified date, and empty results mean no match in the requested window, not an empty market. This is extra contextual value rather than repetition of 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, then the structured-search differentiator and key behavioral facts, then the empty-result caveat. It is front-loaded, scannable, and free of filler.

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 must explain what results look like. It covers limit, ordering, row attributes (counts, verified date), and empty semantics, which is strong. The only gap is that 'counts' is vague without an output schema, so the exact return shape is not fully specified. Still, this is minor given the otherwise complete guidance.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that this is specifically for B2B conferences, framing `from`/`to` as a coherent 'date window', and explaining empty-result semantics in relation to that window. It doesn't duplicate schema details and gives a small but useful boost.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Find upcoming B2B conferences') and immediately lists filter dimensions: city, country, topic, date window. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `search` by calling itself the structured, first-choice search, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

It explicitly says to reach for this tool first, and gives a concrete when-not condition: use `search` only when separate arguments cannot be sent, noting that `search` takes one plain string, returns 10, and omits detail. This is direct guidance about when to choose this tool versus an alternative.

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