List conferences

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds context about optional filtering by category and matches research area. It does not mention pagination or return format, but with annotations covering safety and no output schema issues, this is acceptable.

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 with no extraneous words. It immediately states when to use, gives concrete examples, and explains parameter usage. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool is simple (one optional parameter, read-only, with output schema), the description is fully adequate. It covers purpose, usage context, and parameter behavior. No additional context is needed for an AI agent to correctly select and invoke this 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% and the description adds value by explaining how the category parameter matches the conference's research area, listing example codes (ai, security) and noting case-insensitivity. This goes beyond the schema's description of 'Optional research-area filter' and provides practical guidance.

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 specifies the verb 'list' and resource 'conferences tracked by Lune', and gives concrete user queries that trigger its use (e.g., 'what conferences does Lune track', 'is venue X covered'). It also distinguishes from siblings by noting category-level browsing, unlike get_conference_papers (for specific conference) or subscribe_conference (for subscription).

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 states when to use (user asks about tracked conferences, venue coverage, category browse) and provides examples of intended usage. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context (sibling tools) and the phrase 'category-level browse' imply differentiation. A more explicit exclusion would improve this dimension.

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