List B2match speakers

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that: results are paginated, the set is a narrower subset of the speakers page, and path resolution happens automatically. It doesn't describe return fields, but no output schema exists and the tool is a simple list, so this is a minor gap.

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, each earning its place: what it lists, the alternative for a broader set, and how path behaves. The core purpose is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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 paginated list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, sibling differentiation, pagination, and path override. The only omission is any hint at what fields a speaker record contains, which is minor at this complexity.

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 all four parameters (event, path, after, first) are already documented with examples and limits. The description's note that path is auto-resolved overlaps with the schema's own wording, adding little new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ("List the speakers shown on the event's speakers page") plus the pagination scope. It explicitly names the sibling list_participants as the wrong tool for the general case, so an agent can tell them apart without opening either 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?

"Use list_participants for all registered participants" is an explicit when-to-use-this-instead routing rule. It also explains that the menu path is auto-resolved and that path is only for overriding, giving the agent clear guidance on the one ambiguous parameter.

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