search_conferences

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two useful traits: the corpus size (~10k) and that results are paged via top/skip. It omits what an empty query returns, matching behavior (exact vs partial), and any auth/rate-limit context.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the scope-plus-searchable-fields information is front-loaded before the paging note. Slightly terse given the gaps, but nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description must be self-sufficient, and it stops short: it never says what a result record looks like or how query matching works. For a 3-param, zero-documented search tool this is minimal but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It identifies top/skip as the paging mechanism and names the fields query searches, but does not define top as page size, skip as offset, or note their defaults (50/0). Partial compensation only.

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 (search) and resource (CMT conferences) with a scale hint (~10k) and enumerates the searchable fields (name, city, country, UrlSegmentName). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with list_my_conferences.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance. The word 'ALL' weakly implies a global search versus the sibling list_my_conferences, but the description never states the alternative or the condition that selects it, leaving the agent to infer.

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