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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Devuelve' and 'públicas' suggest a read-only, public information lookup, which is useful, but the description does not mention authentication, error behavior, return format, or any limiting conditions.

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 description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and target resource, with no filler or redundant information. It is concise and effective.

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 tool with one optional, self-documenting parameter, the description provides the essential content scope: identity, positioning, and public capabilities. It lacks explicit output format and usage guidance, but the low complexity and clear scope make it sufficiently 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description could have added parameter context, but it does not mention the language parameter. However, the single parameter is fully self-documenting in the schema with const 'es-ES' and a default, leaving no real ambiguity.

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 starts with 'Devuelve' (returns) and clearly specifies the resource: identity, positioning, and public capabilities of Desafío Comunicación. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like get_contact and get_service.

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?

The description implies the tool should be used when company-level identity, positioning, or public capabilities are needed, but it never explicitly states when to use it over sibling tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so the agent must infer the usage context.

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