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

Annotations already declare it as a safe, read-only, idempotent, non-open-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond that: the result set is capped at 5 items and each recommendation includes an explanation ('por qué encajan'), which tells the agent what to expect without an output schema.

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 that front-loads the input and then the output with rationale. Slightly comma-heavy and could be tightened, but every clause carries information (input type, example, result count, result contents).

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 one-parameter, read-only recommender with annotations covering safety, the description supplies the inputs, the count of results, and what each result contains, which is enough to invoke it correctly. Remaining gaps (language handling, whether results vary over time) are minor.

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 coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by showing a concrete natural-language example ('quiero contestar reseñas de Google más rápido'), clarifying that the input is free-form user phrasing rather than keywords or 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?

Names a concrete verb pair (recibe/devuelve) and a concrete resource: 5 fichas, casos reales y herramientas ranked by fit. This clearly separates it from siblings like ver_ficha (single card) or buscar (search), though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 by 'recibe la tarea del usuario' and the quoted example, so an agent can infer it is for open-ended 'how do I do X' requests. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over buscar or temas, and no exclusion criteria.

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