search_speakers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and it does so by stating the field restriction ('fields only') and the meaning of the precise-matching flags. It does not cover result format, limits, or case sensitivity, but for a read-only search tool it reveals the most decision-relevant behavior.

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 the primary action and scope, followed by targeted parameter guidance. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 simple 3-parameter, 100%-schema-covered search tool, the description covers the searchable fields and the semantics of the optional flags, which is enough to invoke it correctly. It omits output shape and pagination, but those are not necessary for selecting and calling the tool and can be inferred from the tool name.

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 value by mapping the query to the searchable fields (name/company and the four specific fields) and by clarifying the effect of the boolean flags on matching precision. This goes beyond the schema's raw field descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Search speakers') and narrows the scope by listing the exact fields searched (firstName, lastName, displayName, company). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search_sessions and from get_all_speakers, since it is a targeted search rather than a list-all or session lookup.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool (finding speakers by name or company) and offers parameter-level guidance for precise matching with firstNameOnly/lastNameOnly. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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