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

The annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety profile, so the description does not need to repeat it. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting that events are vetted ('publicados y aptos para familia') and that fields such as price are only included when available ('precio cuando existe').

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 a single compact sentence that conveys the resource type, scope, time window, and expected output fields without filler or redundant restatement of the schema. Every element earns its place.

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?

With one optional parameter fully documented in the schema, no output schema, and annotations covering side effects, the description supplies the remaining operational context: what events are returned, where, and what details they include. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 only parameter, 'dias', is fully documented in the schema with its range and default (1-60, default 14), so the description needs no additional parameter explanation. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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?

The description identifies the resource precisely: published, family-friendly events in Cabo Rojo and western Puerto Rico in the coming days, with place, time, and price details. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools, which cover medical, legal, and business information, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'search'.

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 geographic scope and near-term time window provide clear context for when this tool is appropriate, and no sibling tool covers events, so alternatives are not needed. It does not explicitly say 'use this when...', but the usage is strongly implied by the scoped description.

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