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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns, which implies a read-only retrieval operation, but it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects or require authentication. Still, for a simple detail-fetching tool, 'Retorna' is reasonably transparent.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, lists the returned content, and gives a necessary prerequisite. Every clause earns its place, and there is no verbose or redundant wording.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with one parameter and no output schema, so the description is largely adequate. It covers what the tool returns, the required input, and where that input comes from. A clearer statement about output structure or read-only behavior would make it more complete, but nothing essential for calling it correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents the single 'url' parameter with a concrete example, giving 100% coverage. The description adds extra meaning by stating that the URL must come from cercar_agenda, which clarifies the parameter's expected provenance beyond the schema's format example.

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 states the tool's function: 'Retorna tota la informació d'un esdeveniment de l'agenda' and enumerates the types of information returned (dates, place, towns, price, description, links). It also links its input to cercar_agenda, distinguishing it from the search tool, though it does not explicitly contrast with cartellera or poblacions.

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 gives a practical usage prerequisite: it requires the URL or path returned by cercar_agenda. This tells the agent that a search should happen first, providing clear context for when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the implicit connection to cercar_agenda.

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