indico_list_contributions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail not in the annotations: it requires management rights on the event. Beyond that auth requirement it adds little, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 waste, front-loading the resource and scope before the permission requirement. The odd whitespace/indentation is cosmetic and doesn't hurt readability.

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 the agent needn't be told the return shape, and parameters are fully documented. The description rounds out the picture with the required permission. It is nearly complete for a simple filtered list tool.

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 100%, so both parameters (event_id, instance) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 states a specific verb (List) and resource (contributions of an event), and enumerates scope details (database ids, session, schedule, people). This clearly distinguishes it from mutation siblings like indico_create_contribution and indico_update_contribution.

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?

It gives a prerequisite ('Needs management rights on the event') which implies the appropriate context, but it names no alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions. There is no sibling that also lists contributions, so guidance is only implied.

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