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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond that: the output structure and the operational caveat to wait for WhatsApp's photo link preview before sending, which is behavior the agent cannot see in structured fields.

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 core content is front-loaded in one dense sentence covering purpose, output format and timing, followed by the operational tip. The bilingual duplication and parenthetical translation add length without new information, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by describing exactly what the generated message contains. For a one-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage this is essentially complete, though it could note whether the source article must exist first.

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 100% and the single parameter (nota) is fully documented as a URL or identifier, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the parameter format beyond what the schema states, matching the baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb+resource: it turns one Cadena Láser article into a ready-to-post WhatsApp message, and spells out the exact composition (bold headline, deck, credit, marked link). It implicitly contrasts with the digest tool ("no se espera al resumen") but never names the sibling resumen_whatsapp, so differentiation requires inference.

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 gives a clear triggering condition — "para cuando pasa algo y no se espera al resumen" — which tells the agent to pick this over the summary path for a single breaking item. No explicit exclusions or named alternative tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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