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.