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 fully covered without description help. The description adds the useful behavioral detail about what the payload contains, but says nothing about cost/size of the aggregate call or that optional sections may be absent even when requested — a relevant risk for an aggregator.

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 front-loaded sentence that lists the returned sections without filler. It is efficient, though the enumeration of contents could be traded for one clause of sibling routing to better earn its length.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned sections (data, tickets, Vitur Pass, speakers, agenda), which is exactly what an agent needs to judge relevance. The remaining gap is the lack of any routing signal against the many narrower sibling tools.

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 every parameter (event, include_agenda, include_speakers, include_companies) is documented inline with examples and defaults. The description only loosely echoes those fields and adds no format, ID/slug syntax, or default-behavior guidance beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb ("Devuelve") and a concrete resource scope: the data, tickets, Vitur Pass, speaker availability and agenda for one specific VITUR edition. The enumeration makes the payload clear, but it does not distinguish this aggregator from the narrower siblings (vitur-entradas-evento, vitur-ponentes-evento, vitur-vitur-pass), which the agent could equally pick.

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?

Usage is only implied: it returns 'complete information' for a specific edition, so an agent can infer this is the all-in-one lookup versus the per-resource siblings. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of the alternatives by name despite six closely related event tools existing.

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