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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description usefully spends its budget elsewhere: default ordering (published order), default page size, page-beyond-results behavior, unknown-event not-found error, and empty items on no match. It also adds a non-technical caveat to confirm booth assignments with the exhibitor, which nothing in the schema conveys.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: purpose, then prerequisites, then filter semantics, then return shape and error cases, ending with a caveat. Every sentence carries information, though the page/limit defaults repeat what the schema already states.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields (event, page, total_items, total_pages, items) and both failure modes (not-found, empty items). Combined with annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the response.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds genuine semantics by stating that category and text filters combine with AND (the schema only says each 'combines with' the other individually). It also restates the page-1/20-booths defaults, which is mildly redundant with the schema.

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 and resource ('List an event's published exhibitor booths') plus a scoping qualifier (published) and what the payload contains (provider profile links when available). No sibling tool lists exhibitors, and the description makes the domain boundary with list_events/get_event obvious.

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 tells the agent to source event_slug from list_events and to use get_event for event details, and explains that category and query combine with AND. Lacks an explicit when-not-to-use case, but the prerequisite chain is clear enough to route the agent correctly.

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