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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by documenting the required upstream call (search_events) for event_id and the fact that `get` needs content_id, though it says nothing about pagination or result volume.

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?

Two sentences plus a compact per-action bullet list, with the resource definition front-loaded before the dispatch rules. Every line carries actionable information and there is no 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?

For a mutation-free, three-branch read tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything needed to invoke it correctly. Return values need not be explained since an output schema exists.

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% and each field is already described, so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by summarizing which parameters are required or optional per action (optional feature_type on list, optional query/feature_type on search, required content_id on get), which helps an agent pick a branch without reading the oneOf.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: read content sources (Speakers, Agenda, Sponsors, Gallery) for a given event, with the concrete examples making the resource tangible. It does not differentiate itself from sibling readers like read_speakers, read_agenda, or read_sponsors, which an agent could plausibly confuse with this 'content source' listing tool.

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?

Gives clear per-action routing (list vs search vs get) plus the prerequisite that event_id must come from search_events, which is exactly the chaining guidance an agent needs. It stops short of naming when to prefer this over the direct read_speakers/read_agenda siblings.

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