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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context: result ordering ('most relevant first'), the two-mode behavior with/without `edition`, and the important caveat that an abstract is not a peer-reviewed paper. It stops short of describing pagination behavior, which the schema covers.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: trigger first, then return shape, then the caveat and the handoff to get_paper. No repetition of the name or title, no filler.

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 carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so concretely (organiser, site, editions, per-abstract number/format/publication). Combined with the fully-documented input schema and covering annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 and the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by explaining the interaction between `edition` and `min_visibility` (listing that edition's abstracts worth reading, ranked) and by framing the results as curated, which goes beyond the raw field docs.

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 verb+resource (get a conference) and distinguishes itself from the sibling list_conferences by naming it as the source of the id. It also enumerates what the tool returns (organiser, site, editions, abstracts), so an agent can tell exactly what this tool produces versus its siblings.

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?

It opens with an explicit trigger ('Use this when the user asks about one meeting from list_conferences, or what was presented there') and routes the agent onward to get_paper for full-text reading. Both the entry condition and the follow-up alternative are spelled out rather than implied.

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