Sessionize

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns 'full details including bio and social links,' which adds some context about output content. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or how it handles partial matches versus exact matches.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the purpose and key output details. It's appropriately sized for a search tool with two parameters, though it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from output details.

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 search tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does and what it returns. However, it lacks important contextual details like search behavior (exact vs. partial matching), authentication requirements, and differentiation from sibling tools, which would be needed for full completeness.

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 the schema already fully documents both parameters (name and eventId). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as search behavior (case sensitivity, partial matching) or eventId usage details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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?

The description clearly states the tool searches for a speaker by name in a Sessionize event and returns matching speakers with full details. It specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('speaker'), and scope ('Sessionize event'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like getSpeakers or getSessionsBySpeaker.

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 like getSpeakers (which might list all speakers) or getSessionsBySpeaker (which might find sessions by speaker). There's no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or explicit alternatives.

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