Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return-shape context by saying results are grouped by category and visual order, but it does not mention pagination, empty results, or other operational behavior.

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 with no wasted words. It leads with the action and resource, then states the grouping behavior.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with complete schema descriptions and annotations, the description is nearly sufficient: it identifies the returned entities and their grouping. It could be stronger by clarifying when to use this instead of adjacent event-detail tools, but no critical invocation information is missing.

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%, and the schema already explains both 'event' (ID or slug) and 'sector' (optional sector slug, not a sponsorship category). The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Devuelve') and resource ('empresas participantes de una edición VITUR'), plus the grouping behavior. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like agenda, ponentes, or entradas, although it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 only states what the tool returns and gives no guidance on when to use it versus sibling tools such as vitur-informacion-evento or vitur-ponentes-evento. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-routing hints.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.