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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the activity types returned and the date format (AAAA-MM-DD), going beyond what annotations alone provide.

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?

The description is compact and well-organized, with the resource stated upfront and actions laid out in a simple list. Including the por_cliente action adds a little extra length, but it earns its place by helping differentiate the sibling tool.

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 two-parameter tool, the description provides the essential invocation details: date range, date format, and activity scope. It omits response shape and pagination, but without an output schema and with annotations covering safety, this is a minor gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that date_from and date_to define a date window in YYYY-MM-DD format. This is the core parameter meaning, though it does not clarify inclusivity or other edge cases.

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 clearly identifies the resource as the office agenda in Astrea and enumerates the activity types included (hearings, events, deadlines, tasks). It explicitly states that the global action returns all activities in a date window, and the '[Flattened action: global]' marker distinguishes this tool from the por_cliente sibling.

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 contrasts global versus por_cliente, explaining that global returns all activities in a date range while por_cliente groups by client. This gives an agent enough context to decide which variant to use, though it stops short of explicitly stating 'use this when...'.

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