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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and closed-world semantics, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavior: recurring events (weekly or every 15 days) are returned with only their next date, and enrollment requires a web account. Pagination/return format is not covered, but the recurring-event collapsing is valuable non-obvious context.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its scope, followed by the returned fields, the recurring-event rule, and the enrollment caveat. Every sentence carries information, though the field list and the enrollment note could be trimmed slightly.

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, the description compensates by naming the returned fields (tienda, fecha y hora, duración, plazas libres, descripción) and the store/country scoping. It omits pagination behavior and any indication of what an empty result means, leaving a small gap for a 4-parameter listing tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so days, limit, store and country are already documented in the schema. The description mentions store/date/description fields but does not add syntax or interaction detail for any parameter beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb+resource combination — upcoming published events at physical Zacatrus stores — and enumerates the entity types (ligas, torneos, encuentros) plus returned fields. This clearly separates it from list_stores (stores, not events) and from booking tools like book_table.

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?

It clarifies the reading use case and explicitly notes that registration happens on the website with an account (link in url), steering the agent away from trying to register through this tool. It does not name sibling tools as alternatives, so it falls short of explicit when/when-not routing.

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