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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the scope ('across every event') and the 'upcoming' default behavior ('default true; false includes past events') in the schema, but the description itself does not mention pagination, rate limits, or that results are limited to people who actually appeared on stage. The description adds some context beyond the schema but leaves behavioral details to the parameter descriptions.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core purpose ('Find people on stage across every event') before listing filters. Every phrase earns its place, though the filter list is dense and could be slightly more structured. It is appropriately sized for a 17-parameter search tool.

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 search tool with 17 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives a solid overview of what is searched and what filters exist, but it does not explain the response shape, pagination behavior, or how the 'upcoming' default affects results. The schema fills in some gaps, but the description alone would not fully prepare an agent to invoke the tool correctly for complex queries.

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 59%, so the schema documents many parameters but leaves several (city, name, country, event, online, region) without descriptions. The tool description compensates by listing the filter dimensions (company, title, persona, sector, country, dates) and the return fields, which helps an agent infer the meaning of undocumented parameters like country and city. It does not fully document every parameter, but it adds meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 clear verb ('Find') and resource ('people on stage across every event'), then enumerates the exact fields returned (name, title, company, LinkedIn, talk, role) and the filter dimensions (company, title, persona, sector, country, dates). This distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_events and search_sponsors, which target different resources.

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 states what the tool searches ('people on stage across every event') and lists filter dimensions, which implies when to use it: when you need speaker/person data rather than events or sponsors. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives such as search_events or search_sponsors, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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