Get B2match session

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond annotations: the call returns not just details but an embedded first page of attendees, which explains why the attendees_* params exist on a 'get' tool. It stops short of describing cursor semantics for attendees_after, which is left to the schema.

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?

Three short sentences: the output shape is front-loaded, the input rule follows, and the sibling routing comes last. Every sentence carries distinct information with no redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return value, which it does ('details and a first page of attendees'). Combined with 100% schema coverage of the 5 params and full annotation coverage, an agent has what it needs. Minor gap: it doesn't say how large that first page is by default or how the cursor round-trips.

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%, so every parameter is already documented, including the session_id/path relationship. The description reinforces the either/or rule ('path alone is enough') but does not add format, limits, or cursor behavior beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch one agenda session with its details and a first page of attendees') and makes clear this is a single-item retrieval, distinguishing it from get_agenda (which lists sessions) and list_session_attendees (which pages attendees). An agent can select this tool without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternatives and the conditions that select them: 'Use list_session_attendees to page through attendees only, get_agenda to find sessions.' It also states an input-selection rule ('Provide session_id, or path to a session URL; path alone is enough'), leaving nothing to inference.

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