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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses ordering (in-progress first) but nothing about result size, pagination, whether finished matches are ever returned, or permissions, which are the traits an agent needs for a list operation.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the scope and ordering qualifiers; nothing extraneous. It is concise to the point of terseness, and the Spanish wording alongside English sibling tool names adds a small comprehension tax.

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-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives scope and ordering but leaves the returned shape undocumented, since no output schema exists to describe it. Adequate as a minimum but not 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?

Zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description makes no false claims about inputs.

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 (las partidas del MODO VS del usuario) and narrows it with a scope clause (abiertas por él o para él), which separates it from vs_get or vs_join style single-item operations. The listing verb is only implied by the plural noun rather than stated, so it falls short of fully explicit.

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 scope clause implies what is included (own matches, open or joined), which indirectly signals when this list is the right entry point. However, it never states when to prefer vs_get over vs_list, nor any prerequisite such as needing to be in a VS session; usage must be inferred.

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