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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context: it will never fabricate an exact day and always returns the window plus the official citation, which is valuable for an agent reasoning about data reliability.

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 sentences are well front-loaded: the resource and regulatory basis come first, then the return contents and the caveat about exact days. The English translation is redundant but small; overall it is efficient and readable.

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-required-parameter, read-only lookup with a fully documented schema and annotations covering safety, the description is complete enough: it names the resource, the legal basis, the returned windows, the zone classification, and explicitly states what it will not return.

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 100% and there is only one optional parameter whose semantics are already documented in the schema. The description adds context about zone status (Patagonia/Calingasta) but does not extend the parameter's meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 resource (FMD vaccination calendar for 2026, per SENASA Res. 711/2025) and exactly what it returns: first-campaign windows for all categories, second-campaign windows for calves only, and zone status (WITH/WITHOUT vaccination) per province. No sibling tool in the list covers this resource, so it is clearly distinguishable.

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?

Implicitly tells the agent to query by province for zone status, but never states when this tool should be used versus alternatives (e.g., animal_health_plan or livestock_movement_rules) or what an absent province argument yields. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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