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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds what each item carries — source, sealed ingestion time, and a link to the FirmaRED record rather than the outlet — but says nothing about snapshot freshness, caching, or ordering.

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 resource front-loaded and no filler; the parenthetical about linking to FirmaRED rather than the outlet earns its place as non-obvious behavior. Slightly clause-heavy but efficient.

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 takes on the job of explaining the return shape and does so (source, sealed timestamp, internal link). Combined with full parameter documentation and safety annotations, the only real gap is freshness/caching semantics.

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%, with both 'n' (1–30, default 10) and 'tema' (word filter on title/summary) fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or behavior beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Describes a specific resource (the FirmaRED Hoy front page) and its scope — news from 71 Argentine and international outlets, refreshed to the present moment. It implicitly separates a curated front page from a query tool, but never names 'search' or 'fetch', so sibling differentiation is left to 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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus the siblings (search, fetch, oraculo), nor any exclusion or prerequisite. 'ahora mismo' hints at a live snapshot, but an agent gets no routing guidance from the text.

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