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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description does not add behavioral context such as authentication requirements, error behavior, or the fact that it aggregates potentially heavy data. It simply restates the data categories.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and scope. No filler or redundant information.

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 description lists several data categories but omits 'empresas' (companies) which is controllable via include_companies. It also says 'disponibilidad' (availability) of speakers/agenda, while the schema indicates the flags include full agenda and speaker profiles, creating a slight underrepresentation. No output schema exists, so the description carries more responsibility.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, including the required 'event' with format examples and boolean flags with explanations. The description adds no further semantic detail about how parameters control the output.

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 verb 'Devuelve' and lists the specific resources returned (datos, entradas, Vitur Pass, ponentes, agenda) for a specific VITUR edition. It clearly differentiates itself from sibling tools that focus on individual aspects.

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 usage for retrieving comprehensive event info but does not explicitly state when to use it over the dedicated sibling tools (e.g., vitur-agenda-evento, vitur-entradas-evento). No alternatives are mentioned.

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