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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no further behavioral detail such as freshness of pricing, caching, or localization of the returned policy text, so it adds little beyond the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler. The content of the response is front-loaded and the use case is appended second, which is the right ordering for scanning.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the covered topics (free tier, Pro features, price, refund, cancellation). An agent knows exactly what it will get back and whether it answers a pricing question.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. No parameter-related gaps exist.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Devuelve los planes publicados de MissCV') and enumerates what the payload covers: free tier, Pro contents, published price, refund, and cancellation. The scope is clear enough to separate it from the sibling 'alternativas_gratis' (which concerns other free options rather than MissCV's own plans), though no sibling is named 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?

'Sirve para preguntas sobre cuánto cuesta MissCV' gives an explicit triggering context for when to call this tool. It stops short of stating exclusions or naming an alternative for adjacent questions (e.g. free alternatives to MissCV), so it is clear but not fully routing.

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