Sessionize

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool searches and returns full details, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's read-only (implied but not stated), potential rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or pagination for large result sets. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: two sentences that directly state the action and result without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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's complexity (a search function with parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'full details' include, how results are formatted, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool that returns data, the absence of output schema means the description should compensate more, but it doesn't, leaving gaps in context.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning the input schema fully documents the two parameters ('query' and 'eventId') with their types, descriptions, and requirements. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain search syntax or eventId usage further). According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, which is appropriate here.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search sessions by title or description' specifies the verb (search) and resource (sessions), and 'Returns matching sessions with full details' indicates the outcome. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getSessions' or 'getSessionsBySpeaker', which likely also retrieve session data, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'getSessions' (which might list all sessions) or 'getSessionsBySpeaker' (which filters by speaker), leaving the agent to guess based on context. This lack of explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions results in a low score.

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