ArtistAlly

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint; description adds value by enumerating returned data (dates, venue, registration windows, history, etc.). No contradictions, but missing details like authentication or rate limits.

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 concise sentences: first lists all data fields, second explains how to get slugs. Front-loaded with no fluff.

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 single-parameter tool with good annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers input source and output contents. Missing only minor details like error handling.

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% with description for slug. Description adds useful example and context (last segment of URL), going beyond schema. Baseline 3, plus extra value.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'get' and resource 'convention details' with specific identifier (slug). Lists many fields returned. Distinguishes from siblings by mentioning how to obtain slugs from the search tool.

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 users to get slugs from artistally_search_conventions or an ArtistAlly event URL, indicating prerequisite. However, does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare to other siblings beyond the slug source.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the data returned (regions with counts) and the tool's advisory function, enhancing transparency beyond the 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 extremely concise: two sentences conveying purpose, usage, and parameter info with zero wasted words. Front-loaded with the main functionality.

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?

The tool has no output schema, but the description explains what is returned (regions, states/provinces, metro areas with approved-convention counts). It does not detail the output format or pagination, but for a simple reference tool, 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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents everything. The description adds clarity by explicitly stating 'Takes no arguments,' which is useful for an agent.

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 that the tool returns regions, states/provinces, and metro areas with approved-convention counts, and explicitly mentions its use for learning valid filter values for other tools. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_convention and search_conventions.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use it to learn valid region/state/metro filter values for the other tools.' This tells when to use it, though it does not discuss when not to use it or alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so behavior is safe. The description adds valuable context: results are sorted by urgency (soonest close date first) and include both currently open and soon-to-open windows within a configurable look-ahead window (within_days). This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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: the first states the function and key sorting, the second gives concrete example questions. Every sentence is informative with no repetition or fluff. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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?

The description explains the tool's purpose, sorting, and use cases. It does not describe the output structure (fields returned per registration), which would be helpful given no output schema. Parameters are well-covered. Overall, it is mostly complete but lacks detail on return values, which is a minor gap.

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?

All 6 parameters have full descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add further explanation of parameters beyond the schema, such as clarifying the interaction of type with other filters or the default values. It meets the minimum but provides no extra semantic value.

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 lists open registrations for artist-alley and vendor/dealer windows, with specific verb 'List' and resource 'open registrations'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like artistally_get_convention (single convention) and artistally_search_conventions (searching) by focusing on current/upcoming windows sorted by urgency, and provides example queries that clarify its scope.

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 explicitly identifies this as the go-to tool for questions about which conventions have open applications or open this month, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it compares to siblings like artistally_get_convention for details, so guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not contradict these. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the geographic scope and the return fields (dates, venue, registration windows, etc.), which is helpful beyond the 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope, followed by filters and output. No redundant words.

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 listing returned fields. It covers all filterable dimensions and geographic scope. Minor missing details like pagination behavior are covered in parameter descriptions, but overall complete for a search tool.

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% with all parameters documented. The description summarizes available filters (text, community, region, etc.) but adds no individual parameter details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Search', the resource 'fan conventions', and the scope 'across 51 US and Canadian metro areas'. It lists filter options and return fields, effectively distinguishing it from siblings like get_convention (single) and list_open_registrations (open only).

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?

While the description implies usage for searching multiple conventions, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like artistally_get_convention or artistally_list_open_registrations. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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