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 fully covered without prose. The description adds useful domain behavior — results are time-sealed ("sellados con la hora") and carry an adjudicated status ("el estado que les dio el Juez") — but does not explain whether the seal means immutability, whether results can change retroactively, or what the Judge status values mean.

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 dense sentence with no filler; the core scope ("para hoy") is stated up front and the qualifiers follow. It is slightly opaque because it leans on in-house jargon ("Oráculo", "Juez", "sellados") without unpacking it, but nothing is wasted.

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 and no parameters, the description must carry the return-value story, and it only sketches it: 'predictions', a timestamp seal, and a Judge status. How many predictions come back, what the Judge status distinguishes, and how this differs from the 'hoy' sibling are left for the agent to discover.

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 per the baseline this sits at 4. The description does not need to describe input semantics and correctly refrains from doing so.

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 specific resource and scope: the Oracle's predictions for today, including a timestamp seal and the Judge's verdict status. An agent can tell this is a read of today's forecast content, but there is no explicit verb and no differentiation from the sibling 'hoy' (also 'today'-scoped), which risks ambiguity between the two.

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 phrase "para hoy" implies a temporal scope but gives no when-to-use reasoning, no exclusions, and never mentions the sibling 'hoy' or when to prefer one over the other. The agent must guess how this differs from an equally today-oriented tool.

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