pretalx_search_speakers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses a behavioral trait: searches happen server-side for name/email and locally for bio/submission titles, implying a hybrid search strategy. However, it does not mention side effects, rate limits, authentication, or whether the operation is read-only. The description adds some value but lacks depth expected for a tool without annotations.

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?

One concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and scope. No redundant phrasing, every word adds value. It efficiently conveys the core function and search method.

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?

The description is minimal and leaves gaps. It does not explain how to use the parameters (e.g., event filtering, limit, include_raw), nor the return behavior. The output schema exists but does not cover all operational context, such as the practical implications of 'local' search. A more complete description would mention parameter usage and result format.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters (event, limit, query, include_raw). It implicitly hints that 'query' relates to name/email and bio/submission titles, but provides no meaning for the other three parameters. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 speakers, and specifies search keys (name/email, bio/submission titles) and the search mechanism (server-side vs local). This distinguishes it from siblings like pretalx_list_speakers (which lists all) and pretalx_search_submissions (which searches submissions).

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 context on when to use this tool (for searching speakers) and hints at the two-phase approach, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear enough for a user to infer its purpose relative to siblings, but lacks explicit exclusions.

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