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.