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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond that: the now-playing field only appears 'cuando la emisora lo informa' (when the station reports it), which warns the agent the field can be absent. Beyond that it does not describe refresh/real-time behavior.

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 that leads with the resource and the returned fields, plus a short parenthetical geographic gloss. Slightly long because of the full station enumeration, but every element carries 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?

With no output schema, the description must convey the return shape, and it does: station identity, dial, profile, live audio link, and conditional now-playing. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and the empty input schema, an agent has enough to call and interpret the tool, though it lacks any note on freshness or update cadence.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to add, and the description correctly implies a no-argument, list-everything call.

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 the exact resource (the Cadena Láser stations, enumerating all six with their dials) and the fields returned: dial, profile, live audio link, and now-playing. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling news tools (buscar_noticias, leer_nota, etc.), though it is phrased as a noun list rather than an explicit verb+resource statement.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool for live radio station info, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternatives (the siblings are all news tools, so no real alternative exists). Adequate but leaves the trigger condition to inference.

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