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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does contribute one real behavioral fact — that results are limited to open (non-closed) expedientes — and identifies the two event categories returned, but says nothing about ordering, aggregation across expedientes, date-window behavior, or the read-only nature of the call.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler; the scope restriction is front-loaded and the two returned event types are appended compactly. Nothing in the wording could be removed without losing information.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only documentation, and it stops short of describing the response shape beyond naming dueDate and nextAction — no indication of event object fields, sort order, or whether results span all expedientes. Adequate to know what the tool is about, thin for knowing what an agent will actually receive.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter prose that would be redundant, and the naming of dueDate and nextAction usefully signals the concepts surfaced in results.

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?

Names a specific resource (calendar events) and its exact scope (expedientes no cerrados) and enumerates the two event kinds returned: vencimientos (dueDate) and próximas actuaciones (nextAction). That is more than a restatement of the name, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as expedients_upcoming or expedients_upcoming_due_dates, leaving overlap unresolved.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no mention of the near-identical sibling tools that appear to serve related upcoming/due-date purposes. The only implicit guidance is the 'non-closed expedients' qualifier, which the agent must infer as a usage condition on its own.

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