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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior, so the bar is lowered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: the account requirement, page size, and free-tier row limits. It does not mention rate limits or timeout behavior, but this is a substantial addition.

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, front-loading the account requirement and then the core behavior and return fields. Every sentence adds information, though the account requirement could be seen as slightly buried before the main purpose.

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 has no output schema and schema coverage is 100%, the description is complete enough: it covers auth needs, pagination, return fields, and free-tier limits. It does not discuss error handling or edge cases (e.g., invalid edition_id), but those are minor.

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 schema already documents both parameters fully; the description adds no new parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting. The mention of '20 per page' aligns with the schema but adds no extra meaning beyond what's already specified.

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?

Clearly states a specific verb and resource (list exhibitors at one edition) and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent understands the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closest sibling (list_edition_sponsors), leaving some ambiguity about exhibitors vs. sponsors.

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 usage (get exhibitors for a given edition) and includes pagination and account details, but never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives like exporter/export_list or list_edition_sponsors. The guidance is contextual but not prescriptive.

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