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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scope detail that the response includes all side events, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as return format, pagination, or auth requirements.

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 with no filler. The first sentence defines the operation and scope, and the second provides usage context. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only tool with rich annotations and self-documenting parameters, the description is sufficient: it identifies the resource, the retrieval action, and the inclusive scope of side events. It could be more explicit about the returned fields, but the absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by 'full 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents slug, week_id, and event_week_id. The description adds no parameter-level guidance, which keeps this at the baseline rather than above it.

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 ('Get full details') and a specific resource ('a conference week'), and adds a distinguishing scope ('including all its side events'). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_event_weeks or get_event_week_cities without needing to open the schema.

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 this to help users see everything happening during a major conference' gives clear intent and a concrete user-facing scenario. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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