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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: it mandates asking for the user's role before invocation and requires an external visit to the agenda URL to incorporate live session details. This clearly discloses expected agent actions and follow-up steps, with no contradiction to annotations.

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 compact and structured, with the core purpose first, followed by an IMPORTANT note and a follow-up instruction. The role list repeats the schema enum, which is slightly redundant, but the overall length is still appropriate and front-loaded with the key purpose.

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 planning tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the flow (ask role, call tool, fetch agenda) and the expected outcome (incorporate session names and times). It does not explicitly describe the tool's direct return value, but the follow-up instruction implies a preliminary plan exists. Given the annotations cover safety and the schema covers parameters, this is reasonably complete.

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 provides detailed explanations for both role (with enum) and context (with a 20-word example and content guidelines). The description does not add any new parameter-level meaning; it merely reiterates the role list, which is redundant. Per the baseline rule, a score of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Help the user plan their ELC Conference 2026 day based on their role.' It specifies a concrete verb (plan), a resource (conference day), and a distinguishing basis (role). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get-conference-info (informational) and buy-ticket (purchase).

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 explicit usage context: it must be preceded by asking the user for their role, and followed by fetching the agenda from the provided URL. This is strong guidance on when and how to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get-conference-info, so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.

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