speaker.keynotes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns exactly three offerings with descriptions, audiences, and booking details, giving some output expectation, but it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits such as formatting or response details beyond that.

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 with no filler; the primary purpose is front-loaded, and the usage triggers follow in a neat list. 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?

For a simple one-optional-enum-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the purpose, output content, and likely user intents. It does not mention that booking should route to booking.info, but that gap is minor and other tools cover it.

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 enum and parameter description already document the 'topic' parameter completely. The tool description adds no new parameter-specific semantics, fitting the baseline where the schema does the work.

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 uses a specific verb 'Returns' and a precise resource: Ritwik Joshi's 3 keynote offerings. It details the contents (full descriptions, ideal audiences, booking details), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like speaker.tedx_talks or speaker.events.

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 explicitly lists concrete query triggers: 'what does Ritwik speak on, what topics, which keynote for my event, robotics speaker India, AI speaker India.' It does not explicitly name sibling tools to exclude, but the 'Use when asked' list gives clear decision guidance.

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