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.