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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a small amount of behavioral context by noting that each result includes what happens and its official source; it does not discuss update frequency, data freshness, or any limitations.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the core purpose and packs examples and output details without any filler. Nothing extraneous.

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 simple read-only tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description explains what the tool returns (event details and official source), which compensates for the missing output schema. It is nearly complete, though it could mention default behavior or any temporal scope limitations.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (tema and desde) with examples and defaults. The description adds no additional meaning about how these parameters filter or behave, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 resource (upcoming official dates for agriculture) with concrete examples (PAC, quarterly taxes) and what the result includes (what happens that day and its official source). Clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like buscar_producto, gasoleo_hoy, historico, and precio_ultimo, which deal with prices rather than deadlines.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any alternatives. It only describes the content, leaving usage conditions entirely implicit.

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