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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world), so the burden is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the default omission of the large exhibitor list and how to override it. Auth requirements and rate limits are not mentioned, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 written sentences with zero filler; the default-behavior constraint is front-loaded ahead of the alternatives, which is exactly the right ordering for a scanning agent.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description responsibly sketches the return contents and the default omission behavior, and it routes to alternatives for exhibitors. An agent has enough to call it correctly, though slug semantics remain implicit.

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 compensate. It explains include_exhibitors well (default false = list omitted, true = full list), but says nothing about slug beyond its implicit role, leaving half the parameters to be inferred from the name and regex pattern.

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 (get) and resource (event) and even names what the response contains ('organiser sources and exhibitor count'), which lets an agent anticipate the payload. It does not differentiate itself from list_events, but the singular/plural split makes the distinction reasonably inferable.

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?

Explicitly states the default behavior (large exhibitor list omitted) and names two concrete routes for getting exhibitors: list_exhibitors for filtering and include_exhibitors for the full list. This is genuine when-to-use guidance, though it doesn't state when the tool itself should be preferred over siblings.

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