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.