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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent behavior. Description adds valuable context about return data (up to 6 years history, verification status) beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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?

Single sentence front-loads the purpose ('Full profile of one convention by slug') and then lists all included data concisely. No redundant or vague wording.

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-convention read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is thorough, listing many return fields and constraints (up to 6 years history). Could include more on return format but adequate.

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 covers the single parameter with a clear description and example. The tool description adds additional context on how to obtain the slug, complementing the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the extra guidance justifies a 4.

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 it returns a 'full profile of one convention by slug' and enumerates specific data fields (dates, venue, registration windows, etc.). It also instructs how to obtain the slug, distinguishing it from sibling tools like artistally_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?

Describes when to use the tool (need full profile of a specific convention) and how to get slugs (from search or event URL). While it doesn't explicitly exclude other scenarios, the context makes alternatives clear.

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