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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, closed-world lookup, so the bar is lower. The description adds substantial value beyond that by disclosing the return surface (provenance for price tiers, verification status, six-year history cap) that annotations do not cover, though it says nothing about error behavior for unknown slugs.

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 core purpose is front-loaded and the routing hint is placed last, which is effective. The long enumeration of return fields is dense but earns its space because no output schema exists to carry that information.

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 does the heavy lifting by enumerating the return contents thoroughly, including history depth and source attribution. It is nearly complete for a read lookup, missing only not-found or error behavior.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the slug format and provenance. The description's note that slugs come from search or an event URL is useful but largely restates the schema's own example.

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 ('Full profile of one convention by slug') and then enumerates exactly which fields are included, so an agent can distinguish it from the search or coverage siblings without opening a schema.

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 routes the agent to artistally_search_conventions or an ArtistAlly event URL for slugs, giving clear context for when this tool applies. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g., when to prefer coverage or list_open_registrations), so it is not a full when/when-not treatment.

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