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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: an admin link/token credential is required, and the tool deliberately never reveals Secret Santa pairings. It stops short of describing pagination or size limits, but for a read-only summary that is acceptable.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool shows, then use cases, then return value, then limits — a sensible ordering. The content is duplicated verbatim in Spanish and English, which roughly doubles the length, but each language block is individually tight and waste-free.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by stating the return content (a summary of results plus the event link). With the single required parameter documented in the schema and the auth/privacy limits spelled out, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100% (the schema itself describes id_admin as "Enlace o token de administración"). The description still adds useful framing by calling it a hard requirement and an administrative credential, which clarifies the privilege level the caller needs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Muestra el estado de un evento de Juntamos") and then enumerates the exact result domains covered: poll votes, best date, who brings what, who owes whom, Secret Santa opens. This clearly separates it from the sibling tools, which are all creation tools (crear_encuesta, anadir_gasto, etc.).

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?

Provides concrete triggering questions ("¿cómo va la votación del restaurante?", "¿quién debe a quién en el viaje?") that map directly onto user intent. It does not, however, state any when-not conditions or name an alternative tool, though the sibling set makes the read-vs-create split self-evident.

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