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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered. The description adds only the notion that the carousel came from 'this integration' within an 'authorized brand', which hints at a tenant scoping constraint but does not explain error behavior or what the returned carousel contains.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the under-specification noted in other dimensions.

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?

The tool is a simple single-parameter read with annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return values, so the description does not need to explain results. Still, it omits the meaning of the 'recibido'/'draft' distinction and any differentiation from sibling read tools, which an agent needs to pick correctly.

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 says nothing about post_id, so the agent gets no explanation of what identifier is expected or where to obtain it. The schema's format/pattern reveals it is a UUID, but the description does not compensate for the missing coverage by tying it to a carousel or post.

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 names a verb ('Consulta') and a resource ('carrusel recibido'), so the basic action is inferable. However, it never clarifies how this differs from sibling reads like get_post or list_posts, and it conflicts in emphasis with the tool name (draft vs. 'recibido'), leaving the exact object ambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over get_post, list_posts, or create_carousel_draft, nor any prerequisite or exclusion stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the single required parameter.

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