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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing that only published and confirmed speakers are returned and that data is real-time, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what a caller sees for an invalid edition.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. Every clause (published/confirmed, concrete edition, real-time) carries meaning.

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?

A simple one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, so the core is present. However, with no output schema, an agent gets no hint about the shape of a speaker record (name, role, company, photo) or what happens when an edition has no confirmed speakers.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'event' parameter already carries an ID-or-slug explanation plus examples, so the description only reinforces that the edition must be concrete. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the parameter work.

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+resource: returns published and confirmed speakers for a concrete VITUR edition. It clearly separates itself in substance from siblings like vitur-agenda-evento or vitur-empresas-evento, though it never names them.

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 phrase 'para una edición concreta' implies the tool is edition-scoped and needs an event identifier, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as the agenda or event-info tools.

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