gitex_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds factual event context (dates, venues) beyond structured fields, but discloses nothing about auth needs, caching, or how the live data refreshes - reasonable given the low bar set by 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?

Front-loaded with the return purpose, followed by the specific detail. Every sentence is informational, though the detailed answer content arguably belongs in the output schema rather than the description.

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 zero-parameter lookup tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it returns, the topic, and the embedded factual answer. Nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There are no arguments whose semantics a description could clarify.

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 ('Return') and resource ('GITEX Global 2026 details and venue'), then immediately specifies the dates and split-venue structure. There is no sibling tool covering this event, so sibling differentiation isn't needed, but 'details' is left slightly generic before being clarified in the next sentence.

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 purpose implies when to call it (a GITEX 2026 lookup), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus other tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Implied usage only, though there is genuinely no competing alternative in the sibling list.

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