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

Annotations already declare the tool as safe (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds beyond annotations by explaining the query language (Lucene/Solr) and the exact fields returned (record id, title, acronym, dates, location, series, proceedings links), giving the agent a clear picture of behavior without contradiction.

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, front-loaded with the database name and scope, then detailing the query format and return fields. Every sentence adds value; no verbose or redundant content. Highly structured and easy to scan.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, output schema present, strong annotations), the description covers purpose, query syntax, and return contents. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly. Output schema handles return details, so description depth is appropriate.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It clarifies that 'query' is a Lucene/Solr query, which adds meaningful syntax context. However, it does not explain the 'size' parameter, leaving it to the schema's name/type to convey meaning. This partial compensation warrants a middle score.

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: searching the INSPIRE-HEP conferences collection for particle-physics meetings, workshops, and schools. It specifies the resource (conferences), the action (search), and distinguishes from siblings like literature_search or authors_search by focusing on conference records.

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 implies when to use this tool: for questions about physics conference events, their dates, locations, and proceedings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the conference-specific focus and the mention of 'answers when and where' give clear contextual guidance.

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