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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context – the fixed 30-day recency window, Spanish-language explanations, and that each item carries a URL – but says nothing about result volume, freshness sequencing, or pagination.

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 sentence with the subject and recency window front-loaded, followed by the content types and the output format. No filler, no restatement of the title, nothing to trim.

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 zero-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers what the agent needs: what it returns, in what language, over what time window, and that URLs are included. Only the absence of any routing hint against the four sibling tools keeps it short of complete.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4. The description correctly signals a parameterless, fetch-everything call rather than implying hidden filters.

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 concrete resource and scope: AI news from the last 30 days, broken into models, features and tools, returned in Spanish with source URLs. It is clear what an agent gets back. It does not, however, differentiate this from siblings like 'temas' or 'ver_ficha', so the agent cannot tell from the text alone which one to pick.

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: the 30-day window and 'lo nuevo' framing make it obvious this is the tool for recent AI developments. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling tools (buscar, recomendar, temas, ver_ficha), leaving routing to inference.

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