CRE Events: Commercial Real Estate Conference Calendar

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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent write operation, and the description adds useful context beyond them: each call stores a new feed record with filters only and no personal data, the feed auto-updates, and the result is one-click links for Google Calendar, Apple Calendar, and Outlook. It does not cover auth requirements or lifecycle details, but it meaningfully clarifies the write side effect.

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 three tight sentences with no wasted wording. The core action and return value are front-loaded, followed by the key behavioral note about feed storage and a practical instruction to give links to the user.

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 fully described 10-parameter schema and annotations, the description completes the picture by explaining what is returned (one-click links for three calendar platforms) and what side effect occurs (a new stored feed record). No output schema is present, but the description sufficiently explains the return and storage behavior for an agent to call it correctly.

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 all ten parameters are already documented in the schema. The description refers broadly to filters or a list of event IDs, which aligns with the schema but adds little parameter-level meaning beyond it. A baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the semantic burden.

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 action and resource: creating a personal auto-updating calendar feed from filters or event IDs, and returning one-click subscription links for major calendar providers. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_events and get_event, which query or retrieve events rather than create a persistent feed.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when the user wants an auto-updating calendar subscription based on filters or selected events. It also says to give the returned links to the user. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or point to alternatives, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the comparison dimension list, which hints at the response content, but says nothing about output format or behavior with stale/invalid ids; adequate but not rich.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and cardinality, with the prerequisite second. 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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what is compared and where ids come from, which is most of what an agent needs. It stops short of describing the return shape or edge-case behavior with fewer than 2 valid ids.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the ids array and its 2–4 bounds. The description only restates its provenance ("Use ids from search_events"), adding no new syntax or semantics, so this is baseline territory.

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 (compare) with a bounded resource (2–4 events) and enumerates the dimensions compared (dates, place, price, size, audience, sectors, suitability), so an agent can distinguish it immediately from get_event (single fetch) and search_events (discovery).

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?

"Use ids from search_events" establishes the required upstream workflow, which is the key usage fact. It does not state exclusions (e.g., use get_event when you only need one event's details), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that community takes may be included when available, which is useful conditional return-content context, but it does not add much beyond that.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. The parenthetical about id source is useful and compact.

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 simple get-by-id tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete. It explains the record scope and conditional community takes, though it could say more about the return shape if an output schema were absent.

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 the single id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its pattern and example. The description reinforces that ids come from search_events but adds no syntax or format details 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?

States a specific verb and resource: retrieves the full record for one event by id. It also distinguishes itself from search_events by noting that ids come from that sibling, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening schemas.

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?

Clearly implies the tool is used after search_events to fetch a full record for a known id. It does not explicitly say when to prefer compare_events or other siblings, but the usage context is clear.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's real contribution is the return shape: a short list with per-item rationale followed by additional matching events. That two-part response structure is genuinely useful and no output schema exists to convey it, though ranking criteria and defaults are left implicit.

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, front-loaded with the core value proposition (short list for a role) before the filter caveat. The second sentence is somewhat loose in naming only three filter axes, but there is no filler or repetition.

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 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does the essential work of explaining what comes back and why (role-justified short list, then other events). Remaining gaps — the default limit of 3 for secondary events, ordering rules, and the effect of open_only/region — are documented in the schema, so the omission is 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 90%, so nearly every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the role enum, date bounds, price ceiling, region and sector tags. The description only restates the filter dimensions as 'date, place or price' and omits limit, region, sectors and open_only, adding little beyond what structured fields provide — the expected 3 baseline.

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 resource (upcoming CRE conferences) and a specific selection logic (short list tailored to a role, each with a rationale, followed by secondary matches). The parenthetical role list makes the scope concrete and distinguishes it from a generic search tool, though it never names the sibling search_events to say how they differ.

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?

Usage is implied by the framing: you come here when you want a curated list for a named role, and 'optional filters narrow by date, place or price' hints at the narrowing path. There is no explicit when-to-use-this vs. search_events/compare_events guidance and no statement of the default behavior absent a role.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: every event was checked against the organizer's own site, and results include venue, prices, audience, rationale, deadlines, and links.

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 tightly packed sentences with no filler. The purpose and scope are front-loaded, followed by result-content details that help an agent decide whether to call it.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, provenance, and result contents, while the rich input schema covers the 11 optional parameters and annotations cover safety behavior. It does not mention paging or default date behavior, but the schema supplies those details.

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 91%, so the schema already carries most parameter meaning. The description adds a useful summary of filterable dimensions (sector, place, date, price, keyword), but does not explain sort, limit, offset, open_only, or date-bound nuances beyond what the schema states.

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: find upcoming commercial real estate conferences for 2026-2027. It also names the filter dimensions (sector, place, date, price, keyword), but does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as compare_events or recommend_for_role.

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?

Usage is implied by the filter-oriented phrasing, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus compare_events, get_event, recommend_for_role, or upcoming_deadlines. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, and the description adds genuinely new context: the exact deadline categories included, sort order, and the fields returned per item. It does not discuss empty-result behavior or the default window, though the schema covers the default.

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?

One sentence carries resource type, window, ordering, and return contents with no filler. The most useful facts (what deadlines, sorted how) come first.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully tells the agent what each result contains, and the single-parameter, closed-world shape is fully covered. Minor gap: behavior when no deadlines fall in the window is unstated.

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 the single 'days' parameter is already documented with a default of 60 and a max of 400. The description only restates the window as 'next N days', adding no syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline applies.

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?

Names a specific resource (early-bird, hotel and registration deadlines) with a defined scope (next N days) and an explicit ordering (soonest first). It also previews the payload (event, organizer, registration link), which clearly separates it from get_event and search_events.

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 look-ahead window implies when the tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit routing against siblings such as search_events, which could plausibly cover the same event data. No when-not guidance is offered.

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