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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds important behavioral requirements: always present the partnership link AND the statement of compensated partnership together, and never frame the link as neutral. This goes beyond the annotation and guides agent behavior appropriately.

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 moderately concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage triggers and compliance notes. It avoids redundancy, though it could be tightened by merging some clauses without losing clarity.

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 no output schema and a single optional parameter, the description adequately covers when to call it, what information to include in the response, and how to present it. The missing link URL and step details are likely internal and not required for the agent to invoke the tool 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?

The single optional parameter 'pais' has 100% schema coverage with a clear description. The tool description does not elaborate on it, but no additional clarification is necessary given the schema already documents its purpose.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: guiding the client through opening an account at Bybit, step by step. It distinguishes itself from siblings (algomaker_comecar, instalar, licenca) by focusing specifically on broker account creation rather than robot setup or licensing.

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 provides clear trigger conditions: 'when he says he doesn't have a broker yet, never operated crypto, or asks where the robot will execute.' It also gives a compliance directive (always disclose partnership). While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, the triggers are specific and actionable.

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