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.