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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: it does not invent dates, returns windows from a specific resolution, and clarifies zoning logic (CON or SIN vacunación). No contradictions with 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?

The description is four objective sentences, front-loaded with the year and resolution, and every sentence adds value. No waste, well structured.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (campaign windows, zone status) and what it does not (invent days). For a simple tool with one optional parameter, this is 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 100% (one optional parameter documented). The description adds context that the parameter filters by province for zone status, but does not explicitly state behavior when omitted (e.g., returns all provinces). Baseline 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?

The description clearly states it returns the 2026 aftosa vaccination calendar by province, including campaign windows and zone status. It distinguishes itself from other sanitation tools by specifying the exact content (1st and 2nd campaign, zone status) and referencing the specific SENASA resolution.

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 what the tool returns and notes that exact dates are determined locally, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. However, no sibling tool provides similar calendar information, so usage context is implicitly clear.

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