Events Upcoming

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only listing but says nothing about ordering, timezone, how results are paginated/capped, or how limit/min_importance affect output. With five parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 efficient sentence with no wasted words, and the scope and category list are front-loaded. It is under-specified rather than padded, so conciseness itself is fine.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a five-parameter tool with zero annotation and zero schema-description coverage the description is far too thin. It should at least clarify the filter parameters and default window behavior.

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% and the description only implicitly maps 'N días' to the days parameter and gestures at kind via the category list. It says nothing about kind values, limit, from_date, or min_importance (including what importance scale is used), leaving four of five parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 gives a specific verb-less but clear resource ('eventos astrológicos') with a scope ('próximos N días') and enumerates the event categories (retrogradaciones, lunaciones, eclipses, cambios de signo). This distinguishes it reasonably from horoscope siblings and from event_kinds, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as event_kinds (which presumably lists the categories) or the horoscope tools. The agent must infer the use case purely from the one-line scope.

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