search_sessions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses the default limit (20) and return format (JSON array with specific fields). It implicitly suggests read-only behavior via 'search', but does not explicitly state side effects or required permissions. For a search tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise and well-structured: a single-line summary followed by a bulleted Args section and a Returns note. Every sentence is informative, and there is no extraneous content. It is front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and has an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return format. It does not discuss error handling, pagination, or optional behavioral details, but for a conference sessions search tool, this level of detail is sufficient.

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%, but the description provides detailed semantic meaning for each parameter: query with examples, day with valid values ('monday'...), track with examples ('Keynote', 'Tutorial'), and limit with default. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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's purpose: 'Search conference sessions by keyword, topic, speaker name, or technology.' It uses a specific verb ('Search') and identifies the resource ('conference sessions') with multiple search dimensions, which differentiates it from siblings like find_speaker (speaker-specific) and get_schedule (time-based).

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 explains parameters and provides examples (e.g., 'eBPF', 'security'), implying usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_schedule or score_sessions, nor does it mention when not to use it or any prerequisites.

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