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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description adds useful behavior beyond that: permissions are checked like other tools, the key needs the resource scope, and the full 456-operation contract is available at a URL. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Three dense sentences with front-loaded purpose, then URL, permissions, and constraints. No wasted words, and every sentence carries operational information.

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 catch-all tool without an output schema, this is complete: it cannot enumerate 456 operations, so linking the full OpenAPI contract is the right approach; it also states scope requirements and allowed route prefixes. An agent has everything needed to decide and invoke it 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?

All three parameters are described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by whitelisting valid route prefixes and pointing to the contract, which tells an agent which routes are legal and where to find valid values for method and body.

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?

It uses a clear verb and resource: 'Llama a cualquier endpoint de la API de la marca' and explicitly positions itself as the catch-all for operations not covered by sibling tools. The route restriction and contract URL further define what the tool does and differentiate it from the 22 specialized siblings.

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?

It states the usage condition directly: use it 'para lo que no cubran las herramientas anteriores', implying siblings have priority and this tool is the fallback. It also gives a negative constraint: only routes under /api/brand and /api/ext are valid, which helps prevent invalid calls.

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