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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, which are consistent with the description (listing data). The description goes beyond annotations by explaining the semantic meaning of the mapless flag and instructing the agent to advise asking at the entrance, which is crucial behavioral context for handling results. It also clarifies that filtering matches against multiple fields case-insensitively. No contradiction; adds meaningful operational detail.

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 moderately long but each sentence serves a purpose: the first states the output fields, the second explains a critical data nuance (mapless), and the third covers the filtering behavior. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and then adds specifics. It could be trimmed slightly, but the information density is high and relevant.

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 tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the return content (fields, mapless semantics) and filter behavior. It does not explicitly explain the response structure (e.g., array vs object), but for a listing tool this is usually inferable. The mapless guidance is especially complete for handling edge cases. Slightly more detail on pagination would be nice but not critical.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the category filter is a case-insensitive substring matched against category, name, and description—information not fully captured in the schema's terse 'Optional category filter'. This helps the agent formulate effective queries and interpret results.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'booths and vendors at an event', and enumerates the exact data fields returned. This distinguishes it from siblings like events_get or events_whats_on by focusing on the booth/vendor domain, and from events_booth_detail by indicating it handles the collection rather than a single detail.

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 establishes the clear context of when to use this tool (when booths/vendors are needed) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions such as 'for event schedule use events_whats_on'. The resource specificity implies usage, but there is no explicit guidance about when NOT to use it. This meets 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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