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

Annotations already convey readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by clarifying that only public, existing published language versions are used, with English fallback. No contradiction 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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and output, then states the language fallback behavior efficiently.

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 an output schema present and only two parameters, the description covers the purpose, the public/read-only nature, and the language fallback behavior. Nothing essential for calling the tool correctly is missing.

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 location parameter is described in the schema, including guidance to use search_locations. The language parameter lacks a schema description, but the tool description compensates by explaining that only published language versions are used, with English fallback.

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 specifies a verb ('Read'), a precise resource ('public Salsa Vida city, region or country guide summary'), and an output ('canonical link'). This makes the tool's purpose immediately distinguishable from the event and search tools.

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 does not explicitly state 'use this instead of get_event', but the guide-versus-event distinction is clear from the resource naming. The location schema description also provides actionable guidance: 'Use search_locations to disambiguate.'

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