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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by disclosing the bulk execution capability (agenda_ids), which is a behavioral trait not inferred from annotations. No contradictions exist, though return format and other quirks are not covered.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences, each adding meaningful information. The purpose is front-loaded, and the bulk support note is relevant. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with 3 parameters (including a nested 'query' object), no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return shape, the purpose of the 'query' parameter, or how single vs. multiple agenda IDs should be used. Annotations cover safety, but not functional completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies the 'agenda_ids' parameter for batched execution, while ignoring the 'query' object parameter and the relationship between 'agenda_id' and 'agenda_ids'. This is insufficient for a 3-parameter tool with nested objects.

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 identifies the specific resource ('workflow stages of an agenda item') and is distinct from sibling tools like easyjur_agenda_comentarios or easyjur_agenda_envolvidos. However, it lacks an explicit action verb such as 'get' or 'list', relying on the readOnlyHint annotation to imply retrieval.

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 bulk support note ('accepts agenda_ids for batched execution') gives a conditional usage hint, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like easyjur_get_agenda or easyjur_list_agenda. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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