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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Consulta' reinforces a read-only operation. It adds useful context about the return values (availability and official URL) and the requirement that the event be published, but it does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or error behavior. No contradiction exists.

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 conveys the action, resource, and scope efficiently.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and simple read-only semantics, the description is nearly complete. It clearly states the returned data (availability and official URL) and the event state requirement (published), though it omits edge-case behavior such as handling of unpublished or nonexistent events.

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 schema covers the single 'event' parameter at 100% with 'ID numerico o slug del evento.' The description adds negligible parameter-level detail beyond saying the event must be published, which is already implied by the tool's purpose.

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 'Consulta' and clearly identifies the resource: 'la disponibilidad y URL oficial de entradas de un evento VITUR publicado.' This distinguishes it well from sibling tools focused on agenda, empresas, ponentes, etc.

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 use when needing ticket availability or official URLs for a published event, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. Sibling names offer context, but the description itself gives no direct usage guidance.

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