pretalx_search_submissions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a two-phase approach (server-side query plus local matching) but does not explain what 'local matching' entails, whether the operation is read-only, or any other side effects. This is insufficient for a 7-parameter tool.

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 sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified for a tool with 7 parameters. It is concise but not appropriately sized, lacking structural breakdown of behavior or parameters.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values do not need description. However, the operation is contextually incomplete: there are no parameter descriptions, no annotation safety signals, and the core behavior ('local matching') is undefined. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 compensate. It only vaguely mentions 'server-side q', which likely maps to the 'query' parameter, but offers no semantics for the other six parameters (event, limit, state, track, include_raw, submission_type).

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 identifies the tool as searching submissions, with the specific mechanism of 'server-side q plus local matching'. This distinguishes it from listing or retrieving individual submissions, though it does not explicitly reference sibling tools.

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 implies the tool is for searching submissions, which gives a basic usage context. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over pretalx_list_submissions or pretalx_search_speakers, nor any exclusions.

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