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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the content is drawn from a published and updated WordPress institutional page, hinting at a maintained source, but says nothing about response format, language, or whether the output is a static snapshot.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and the resource. Nothing repeats the title or the schema.

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 zero-parameter read tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description is serviceable but undersells scope: the title says 'Información sobre VITUR' broadly while the description narrows it to 'qué es VITUR', leaving the agent unsure whether dates, programs, or pass details are included.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline is 4. The description implicitly confirms this by framing the answer as coming from a single fixed institutional page rather than from caller-supplied filters.

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 ('Explica') and a clear resource ('qué es VITUR'), so an agent knows it returns an institutional description of the organization. It does not, however, contrast itself with the close sibling vitur-informacion-evento, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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: an agent can infer 'call this when you need background on VITUR,' but the description never states when to prefer it over vitur-informacion-evento, vitur-buscar-contenidos, or vitur-vitur-pass. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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