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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and adds some value: it discloses the return fields (dates, location, sector, speaker/sponsor counts) and the credit cost ('1 credit per row'), which is not in the schema. However, it omits meaningful behavioral traits such as default upcoming=true, pagination semantics, and how filters combine, so disclosure is partial.

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 tight sentences earn their place: purpose and scope first, then return fields, then cost. No filler, no repetition of schema content, and the most decision-relevant fact (credit cost) is included.

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 14-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, results, and cost but leaves gaps: pagination defaults, substring matching behavior of q, and the effect of the upcoming default are unaddressed. It is adequate for a first pass but not complete for correct invocation in all cases.

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 50%, so the description partially compensates by mapping return fields to filter categories: 'location' to city/country/region/online, 'sector' to industry/topic, and 'speaker/sponsor counts' to min_speakers/min_sponsors. But it adds no semantics for q, limit, offset, upcoming, or the online enum, leaving half the parameters underspecified.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('conferences, congresses, expos and trade shows') with explicit global scope ('worldwide (any sector)'). It implicitly distinguishes from search_speakers and search_sponsors by naming the event entity, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with get_event or other siblings.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_event, search_speakers, or search_sponsors. 'Any sector' hints at breadth but provides no conditions, exclusions, or routing advice, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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