VITUR MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are grouped by day and room, and an empty agenda returns an explicit 'pendiente de publicar' signal rather than an empty list — useful for the agent to interpret results.

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, zero waste, front-loading the return value and the grouping behavior before the empty-state caveat. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only retrieval tool with full schema coverage, the description covers what is returned, how it is organized, and the empty case. With no output schema, a brief note on the shape of each agenda entry would close the remaining gap, but an agent has enough to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so event, date, room and the detail enum are all documented in the schema, including what each detail level adds. The description's mention of grouping by day and sala loosely maps to the date/room filters but adds no syntax or interaction details beyond the schema.

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 (devuelve) and resource (la agenda de una edición VITUR) plus the organizing shape (agrupada por día y sala). It is easy to distinguish from siblings like vitur-ponentes-evento or vitur-entradas-evento by resource, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for retrieving an event's schedule. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no reference to alternatives such as vitur-informacion-evento when general event data is wanted.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful constraint that only *published* entries are searched, but says nothing about result ordering, whether matching is full-text or prefix, or case/diacritic handling.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. No filler, though it is perhaps too short given the missing behavioral detail.

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 simple read-only search tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the core requirement (search published blog entries by text, optionally by category) is conveyed. Only result ordering and the undocumented limit remain unclear, which are minor.

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 coverage is 67%, so query and category are already documented, and the description restates them without adding format details (e.g., matching behavior for query, slug expectations for category). The limit parameter has no schema description and is not addressed in the description at all.

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 states a specific verb (buscar) and resource (entradas publicadas del blog de VITUR), which clearly separates it from sibling tools covering eventos, noticias, or empresas. It doesn't name a sibling explicitly, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 implies text search with an optional category filter, but never tells the agent when to use this over vitur-ultimas-noticias or the event-search siblings, nor what happens when a category isn't given. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that results indicate presence of speakers, agenda, and tickets, which is useful output context, but says nothing about pagination, default limit, or result volume.

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 well-formed sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. It could optionally include filtering guidance, but nothing is wasted.

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 7 optional params and no output schema, the description should say more about return shape and filtering combinations. It does explain that results report speakers/agenda/tickets availability, which partially covers returns, but leaves period/limit behavior and result ordering unaddressed.

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?

At 57% schema coverage, the schema itself documents city, has_agenda, has_speakers, and query. The description hints at the speaker/agenda filters and the future/historical dimension (period), but leaves year, limit, and query semantics entirely to the schema, so it adds little beyond it.

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 clear verb (busca) and resource (eventos VITUR), and adds that it covers both future and historical events and reports availability of speakers, agenda, and tickets. This distinguishes it somewhat from nar-rower siblings like vitur-proximos-eventos or vitur-proximo-evento, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

Mentioning 'futuros e históricos' implies the tool spans both periods versus the 'próximos' siblings, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance or named alternative. Usage must be inferred from the sibling list.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return-shape context by saying results are grouped by category and visual order, but it does not mention pagination, empty results, or other operational behavior.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It leads with the action and resource, then states the grouping behavior.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with complete schema descriptions and annotations, the description is nearly sufficient: it identifies the returned entities and their grouping. It could be stronger by clarifying when to use this instead of adjacent event-detail tools, but no critical invocation information 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains both 'event' (ID or slug) and 'sector' (optional sector slug, not a sponsorship category). The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Devuelve') and resource ('empresas participantes de una edición VITUR'), plus the grouping behavior. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like agenda, ponentes, or entradas, although it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 only states what the tool returns and gives no guidance on when to use it versus sibling tools such as vitur-informacion-evento or vitur-ponentes-evento. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-routing hints.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description carries a lighter burden. It usefully discloses the returned content (availability + official URL) in the absence of an output schema, but says nothing about what happens for unpublished events or events without ticket sales.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and the returned values with no filler. Brevity is appropriate here, though a short clause on failure/precondition would have earned more.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and the published-event constraint. Only edge-case behavior (no tickets, unpublished event) 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'event' parameter already documents that it accepts a numeric ID or slug. The description adds no further semantics about the identifier beyond the 'published event' constraint.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Consulta la disponibilidad y URL oficial de entradas de un evento VITUR'. No sibling tool (informacion-evento, agenda-evento, etc.) covers ticketing, so the resource is implicitly distinct, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the closest siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource (fetch ticket availability/URL for an event), and the word 'publicado' hints at a precondition, but there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not rules or named alternatives among the many sibling endpoints.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without description help. The description adds the useful behavioral detail about what the payload contains, but says nothing about cost/size of the aggregate call or that optional sections may be absent even when requested — a relevant risk for an aggregator.

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 front-loaded sentence that lists the returned sections without filler. It is efficient, though the enumeration of contents could be traded for one clause of sibling routing to better earn its length.

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 usefully enumerates the returned sections (data, tickets, Vitur Pass, speakers, agenda), which is exactly what an agent needs to judge relevance. The remaining gap is the lack of any routing signal against the many narrower sibling tools.

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% and every parameter (event, include_agenda, include_speakers, include_companies) is documented inline with examples and defaults. The description only loosely echoes those fields and adds no format, ID/slug syntax, or default-behavior guidance beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb ("Devuelve") and a concrete resource scope: the data, tickets, Vitur Pass, speaker availability and agenda for one specific VITUR edition. The enumeration makes the payload clear, but it does not distinguish this aggregator from the narrower siblings (vitur-entradas-evento, vitur-ponentes-evento, vitur-vitur-pass), which the agent could equally pick.

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?

Usage is only implied: it returns 'complete information' for a specific edition, so an agent can infer this is the all-in-one lookup versus the per-resource siblings. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of the alternatives by name despite six closely related event tools existing.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the content is drawn from a published and updated WordPress institutional page, hinting at a maintained source, but says nothing about response format, language, or whether the output is a static snapshot.

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 no filler, front-loading the verb and the resource. Nothing repeats the title or the schema.

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 read tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description is serviceable but undersells scope: the title says 'Información sobre VITUR' broadly while the description narrows it to 'qué es VITUR', leaving the agent unsure whether dates, programs, or pass details are included.

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 schema baseline is 4. The description implicitly confirms this by framing the answer as coming from a single fixed institutional page rather than from caller-supplied filters.

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 ('Explica') and a clear resource ('qué es VITUR'), so an agent knows it returns an institutional description of the organization. It does not, however, contrast itself with the close sibling vitur-informacion-evento, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer 'call this when you need background on VITUR,' but the description never states when to prefer it over vitur-informacion-evento, vitur-buscar-contenidos, or vitur-vitur-pass. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing that only published and confirmed speakers are returned and that data is real-time, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what a caller sees for an invalid edition.

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 action and resource, with no filler. Every clause (published/confirmed, concrete edition, real-time) carries meaning.

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?

A simple one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, so the core is present. However, with no output schema, an agent gets no hint about the shape of a speaker record (name, role, company, photo) or what happens when an edition has no confirmed speakers.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'event' parameter already carries an ID-or-slug explanation plus examples, so the description only reinforces that the edition must be concrete. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the parameter work.

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+resource: returns published and confirmed speakers for a concrete VITUR edition. It clearly separates itself in substance from siblings like vitur-agenda-evento or vitur-empresas-evento, though it never names them.

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 phrase 'para una edición concreta' implies the tool is edition-scoped and needs an event identifier, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as the agenda or event-info tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'publicado' filter, but does not define what 'proximo' means, how results are ordered, or what happens when no event exists.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. For a zero-parameter read-only tool, this is appropriately sized.

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?

Given the simple zero-parameter schema and rich annotations, the core invocation information is present. However, with no output schema, the description could say more about the returned event shape, empty-result behavior, or how 'next' is determined.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description correctly avoids introducing unnecessary parameter detail.

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: 'Devuelve' plus 'el proximo evento VITUR publicado'. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not distinguish itself from the very similar sibling vitur-proximos-eventos or from vitur-agenda-evento.

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 singular 'proximo evento' implies the use case of fetching only the next event, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus vitur-proximos-eventos or agenda tools. Usage is therefore inferable but not directed.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only the vague temporal notion of 'proximos' and says nothing about ordering, date range, what happens when limit truncates results, or how city filtering behaves. It does not contradict the annotations, but it adds little behavioral context beyond them.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its brevity is appropriate for a simple list tool, though it may be too sparse given the sibling ambiguity and undocumented limit behavior.

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 simple read-only, two-parameter listing tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it leaves important context implicit: what 'proximos' means in practice, whether results are sorted, and how the limit default of 5 affects completeness. An agent could call it, but not with full confidence about the returned scope.

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 50%: the 'city' parameter has only the tautological schema text 'Ciudad opcional,' and 'limit' has no description at all, only numeric constraints. The tool description merely repeats that city is optional and does not compensate for the undocumented 'limit' parameter or explain how filtering interacts with 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Lista los proximos eventos VITUR,' plus an optional city filter. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the singular sibling 'vitur-proximo-evento' or from search-oriented siblings like 'vitur-buscar-eventos'.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'vitur-proximo-evento' (singular) or 'vitur-buscar-eventos'. The only hint is the word 'proximos,' which implies upcoming events but does not define the boundary or exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds only the ordering ('mas recientes'), which largely restates the title 'Ultimas noticias'; it says nothing about how many entries are returned by default, whether ordering is by publish date, or how category filtering interacts with the limit.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 one of two parameters undocumented, the description carries real burden but supplies almost nothing: no return shape, no default-limit behavior, no indication that omitting category returns all categories. For a simple listing tool this leaves clear gaps an agent would hit on first invocation.

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 only 50%: 'category' is documented in the schema but 'limit' has no description at all beyond its default and min/max bounds. The description mentions no parameters, so it does not compensate — an agent cannot learn from it what 'limit' caps or what happens when category matches nothing.

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: 'Devuelve las entradas mas recientes publicadas por VITUR', which tells an agent this is a recency-ordered listing of VITUR content. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings like vitur-buscar-contenidos or vitur-buscar-eventos, so the boundary between 'latest' and 'search' must be inferred.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The word 'recientes' hints at a news-feed use case, but nothing tells the agent to prefer this over vitur-buscar-contenidos when the user asks for content.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned data shape (price, sale status, URL, included events) but says nothing about auth requirements, whether results are cached/static, or what happens if no pass is currently on sale.

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 front-loaded sentence with the resource first and the return fields after; no filler, no redundancy with the title.

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 carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does list the main fields an agent would need. It stops short of indicating whether the included-events list is bounded or how to interpret sale status values.

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 of 4 applies; there is no parameter behavior left unexplained. The description correctly implies a global, unfiltered lookup.

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 ("Devuelve el pase vigente") and enumerates the payload: price, sale status, official URL, included events. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling tools that also return purchase/informational data (vitur-entradas-evento, vitur-informacion-vitur), so the agent must infer whether this is a ticket-product lookup or general info.

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 and no named alternative. The word "vigente" weakly implies current-only data (no historical passes), but nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over vitur-entradas-evento or vitur-informacion-vitur.

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