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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds that results are limited to published and confirmed speakers and are fetched in real time, which provides useful behavioral nuance. No contradictions with annotations.

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 with no filler; all words add value. The key components (action, resource, scope) are in the first few words, and the remaining phrase clarifies the filter and freshness.

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 a simple schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential inputs and the nature of the output ('ponentes'), but the lack of an output schema means the agent won't know the exact response shape. Still, for a straightforward list-fetching tool, this is sufficiently complete.

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 single `event` parameter is fully documented in the schema with an example, so the description doesn't add much beyond the schema. Per the rubric, high schema coverage sets a baseline of 3.

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 specifies a resource ('ponentes') and a narrow scope ('edición concreta de VITUR'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like agenda or empresas. It also adds status filters ('publicados y confirmados'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly indicates when to call the tool: when requesting speakers for a specific VITUR edition. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but 'edición concreta' and 'en tiempo real' provide useful context. Since no when-not guidance is given, it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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