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.