VITUR MCP

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only and idempotent, so no safety concerns are needed. The description adds behavioral context by stating that results are grouped by day and room, and that an empty agenda specifically indicates pending publication. This extra context helps the agent interpret the response beyond the annotation's safety hints.

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 sentence that front-loads the main action and purpose, then adds a conditional note about empty results. No redundant words or unnecessary details.

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?

The description provides the key output behavior (grouping by day/room) and the special empty case. The detail parameter's schema description already explains return levels, so the tool description doesn't need to repeat that. It lacks an explicit return structure, but with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the essential behavior for a simple agenda retrieval 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?

The input schema describes all four parameters with formats and examples, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description itself does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 uses the specific verb 'Devuelve' and clearly identifies the resource: the agenda of a VITUR edition. It also adds grouping detail ('agrupada por día y sala') that distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'vitur-informacion-evento' or 'vitur-ponentes-evento'. The purpose is unambiguous and standalone.

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 comparison with sibling tools or instructions on when to prefer this tool. However, the description implies its use when retrieving an event's schedule by clearly stating what it returns. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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 establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the behavioral detail that only published entries are searched, which is not captured by annotations or schema. However, it does not describe ordering, pagination, or response format.

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, focused sentence that directly communicates the tool's purpose without any superfluous content. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to parse.

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 search tool with annotations and a schema, the description is sufficient to convey purpose and main parameters. It lacks usage differentiation and limit context, but the schema covers technical constraints, and no output schema means return values are not expected. Overall, complete enough for this complexity.

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 description explains that search is by text and optional category, directly mapping to the 'query' and 'category' parameters. It does not mention 'limit', but the schema defines its default, min, and max, making it self-explanatory. Given 67% schema coverage, the description adds value for the two primary parameters.

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 the tool searches published VITUR blog entries by text and optional category, using a specific verb ('Busca') and resource ('entradas publicadas del blog de VITUR'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like vitur-buscar-eventos and vitur-ultimas-noticias.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, usage contexts, or sibling tool distinctions, leaving the agent to infer from the name and description alone.

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 this as a read-only, idempotent operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about searching future and historical events and showing whether speakers, agenda, and tickets exist, which is helpful but does not detail response format, pagination, or any special behavior. It does not contradict the 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core action and result. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat thin. It explains the main search capability and the boolean indicators but does not clarify the return format or how 'ediciones' (from the title) relate to events. The description is adequate for basic use but lacks details that would help an agent fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 57%, so many parameters are already documented. The description adds some context by mentioning future/historical events, which aligns with the 'period' and 'year' parameters, but it does not compensate for the undocumented 'limit' or 'year' fields. Overall, it adds marginal value beyond the schema without fully bridging the gap.

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 states the tool searches VITUR events (both future and historical) and indicates whether they have speakers, agenda, and tickets. It uses a specific verb 'Busca' and a clear resource ('eventos VITUR'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on individual event details or upcoming events only.

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 implies usage for searching events across time and checking availability indicators, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings like 'vitur-proximos-eventos' or 'vitur-informacion-evento'. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so guidance is only implicit.

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, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context by disclosing that results are grouped by category and follow a visual order. While it doesn't mention pagination or exact return format, this is sufficient for a simple read-only listing tool.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose and output organization. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundant or extraneous information. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is simple with two parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema. The description covers the core return semantics (grouping and visual order) and the schema covers parameter definitions. Slight gaps such as explicit handling of empty results or deeper output structure do not significantly hinder an agent's understanding for this basic listing operation.

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 the schema fully documents both parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics; it merely restates the event context already implied by the required 'event' parameter. Per the baseline rule, a score of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the burden.

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 states the tool's function: 'Devuelve las empresas participantes de una edición VITUR agrupadas por categoría y orden visual.' This gives a specific verb (devuelve), resource (empresas participantes), and scope (edición VITUR), distinguishing it from sibling tools like vitur-ponentes-evento or vitur-entradas-evento. The grouping by categoría and orden visual adds further specificity.

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 provides a clear context for use: retrieving participating companies for a VITUR edition. It does not explicitly compare with alternatives, but the purpose is so specific that an agent can infer when to use it. No exclusions are stated, but none are needed given the clarity.

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, and the description's 'Consulta' reinforces a read-only operation. It adds useful context about the return values (availability and official URL) and the requirement that the event be published, but it does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or error behavior. No contradiction 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the action, resource, and scope 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 one parameter, no output schema, and simple read-only semantics, the description is nearly complete. It clearly states the returned data (availability and official URL) and the event state requirement (published), though it omits edge-case behavior such as handling of unpublished or nonexistent events.

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 schema covers the single 'event' parameter at 100% with 'ID numerico o slug del evento.' The description adds negligible parameter-level detail beyond saying the event must be published, which is already implied by the tool's purpose.

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 the specific verb 'Consulta' and clearly identifies the resource: 'la disponibilidad y URL oficial de entradas de un evento VITUR publicado.' This distinguishes it well from sibling tools focused on agenda, empresas, ponentes, 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?

The description implies use when needing ticket availability or official URLs for a published event, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. Sibling names offer context, but the description itself gives no direct usage guidance.

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, destructiveHint=false. The description does not add behavioral context such as authentication requirements, error behavior, or the fact that it aggregates potentially heavy data. It simply restates the data categories.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and scope. No filler or redundant information.

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?

The description lists several data categories but omits 'empresas' (companies) which is controllable via include_companies. It also says 'disponibilidad' (availability) of speakers/agenda, while the schema indicates the flags include full agenda and speaker profiles, creating a slight underrepresentation. No output schema exists, so the description carries more responsibility.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, including the required 'event' with format examples and boolean flags with explanations. The description adds no further semantic detail about how parameters control the output.

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 the verb 'Devuelve' and lists the specific resources returned (datos, entradas, Vitur Pass, ponentes, agenda) for a specific VITUR edition. It clearly differentiates itself from sibling tools that focus on individual aspects.

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 implies usage for retrieving comprehensive event info but does not explicitly state when to use it over the dedicated sibling tools (e.g., vitur-agenda-evento, vitur-entradas-evento). No alternatives are mentioned.

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 mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context about the information source and freshness ('publicada y actualizada en WordPress'), which helps the agent trust the output as current institutional content.

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 that states the action and source without any filler. Every word 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 no-parameter, read-only informational tool, the description fully explains what the tool does and where the content comes from. No output schema is necessary because the output is simply the explanation of VITUR.

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 is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The baseline of 4 applies because no schema information needs compensation.

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 the specific verb 'Explica' (explains) with a clear resource: what VITUR is, based on its institutional WordPress page. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on events, news, and pass 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?

The description implies the tool is for obtaining general, current information about VITUR from its official institutional page. It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternative tools, but the use case is unmistakable among the event-centric siblings.

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 read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds that results are limited to published and confirmed speakers and are fetched in real time, which provides useful behavioral nuance. No contradictions 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; all words add value. The key components (action, resource, scope) are in the first few words, and the remaining phrase clarifies the filter and freshness.

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 a simple schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential inputs and the nature of the output ('ponentes'), but the lack of an output schema means the agent won't know the exact response shape. Still, for a straightforward list-fetching tool, this is sufficiently 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?

The single `event` parameter is fully documented in the schema with an example, so the description doesn't add much beyond the schema. Per the rubric, high schema coverage sets a baseline of 3.

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 the verb 'Devuelve' and specifies a resource ('ponentes') and a narrow scope ('edición concreta de VITUR'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like agenda or empresas. It also adds status filters ('publicados y confirmados'), making the purpose 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?

The description clearly indicates when to call the tool: when requesting speakers for a specific VITUR edition. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but 'edición concreta' and 'en tiempo real' provide useful context. Since no when-not guidance is given, it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 safety is covered. The description adds the qualifiers 'proximo' and 'publicado', giving temporal and status context. However, it does not disclose return format, behavior when no event exists, or whether 'proximo' means upcoming by date or most recently published.

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, concise sentence that directly states the action and object. It contains no filler, redundant information, or unnecessary detail, making it optimally front-loaded.

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-only tool with rich annotations, the description captures the core semantics: it returns the next published VITUR event. It is not a perfect 5 because there is no output schema and the description does not mention return shape or edge-case behavior when no event is found.

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 the schema already provides complete coverage. The description has no need to explain parameter syntax or meaning, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 the specific verb 'Devuelve' and identifies the exact resource: 'el proximo evento VITUR publicado'. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as vitur-proximos-eventos by using the singular 'evento' rather than plural, indicating a single next event.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like vitur-proximos-eventos or vitur-agenda-evento. It does not state any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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 disclose readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so no additional safety disclosure is required. The description adds the 'proximos' temporal scope but does not describe return format or ordering, keeping it within the baseline for annotation-covered tools.

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 Spanish sentence conveys the tool's purpose and optional filter with no filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple read-only list tool.

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 tool with good annotation coverage, the description covers the core purpose and optional parameter usage. It could mention the limit parameter or distinguish from singular sibling, but these are not critical given the schema and sibling names.

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 description mentions an optional city filter, but this merely restates the schema's 'Ciudad opcional.' The 'limit' parameter is not mentioned in the description, and the schema has no description for it, so the meaning relies solely on default/min/max annotations. The description adds little beyond structured data.

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 'Lista los proximos eventos VITUR' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating a read-only listing of upcoming VITUR events. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'vitur-proximo-evento' by the plural 'proximos' and from 'vitur-buscar-eventos' by emphasizing upcoming rather than arbitrary search.

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 implies its use case: listing upcoming VITUR events with optional city filtering. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for other scenarios, but the plural scope and 'proximos' provide clear context.

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, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavior that results are ordered by recency ('mas recientes'), but does not disclose other behaviors like pagination, limits, or what constitutes an 'entrada'.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and purpose. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, with no wasted text.

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?

This is a simple read-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description adequately states the core function, and annotations cover the safety aspects. However, it could be more complete by explaining how limit and category affect results, though the schema partially covers this.

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 only 50%: the category parameter has a description, but limit is undocumented. The description does not mention or explain either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage and adds no meaning 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Devuelve' (returns) and clearly identifies the resource as 'las entradas mas recientes publicadas por VITUR' (the most recent entries published by VITUR). This clearly distinguishes it from the event-related sibling 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 implies the usage: to get the latest news/entries from VITUR. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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 the operation as read-only and idempotent, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds context about the specific content returned (price, sale status, URL, events), but does not disclose any additional behavioral aspects such as caching or data freshness.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no extraneous information. Every word contributes meaning, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 serves as the sole specification of return content, listing all expected data points (pass, price, sale status, URL, events). This is complete for a simple read-only tool with no parameters.

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 the schema trivially covers everything. The description clarifies the concept of 'pase vigente' (current pass) as the implicit context, but no parameter semantics are needed. Baseline 4 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 uses the specific verb 'Devuelve' (returns) and clearly identifies the resource as 'el pase vigente' (the current pass), along with its price, sale status, official URL, and included events. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on events, companies, or general information.

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 implies usage when the agent needs information about the current pass, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. Since there are no parameters or preconditions, guidance is limited to interpreting the tool's purpose.

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