speaker.events

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context beyond those annotations: the data is verified, limited to past events, and includes audience type and talk topics. This gives the agent a clearer picture of what the tool returns without contradicting 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?

One dense sentence delivers the verb, resource, notable examples, output contents, and intended use with no wasted words. The purpose and resource are front-loaded, and every clause adds 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?

For a simple read-only list tool with one optional, fully documented parameter, the description is complete: it covers what is returned, the data's scope, and the intended use. Annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the schema covers the filter. Nothing material is missing for successful invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%: the single optional 'category' parameter is fully documented with an enum and a one-line description. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('Returns') and names the exact resource: a verified list of Ritwik Joshi's past speaking events. It also lists representative examples and the kinds of data returned (event details, audience type, talk topics), making the tool's scope clear and distinct from siblings like speaker.profile or speaker.keynotes.

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 final sentence, 'Use to verify speaking credentials,' provides a clear intended use case and tells an agent when this tool is relevant. It does not explicitly name excluded situations or alternatives among the sibling tools, but the use-case framing is strong enough to guide selection.

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