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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the return payload (date, summary, link) — important since there is no output schema. It omits ordering guarantees and what happens past the 5-edition cap.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads what is returned and in what shape, the second front-loads the invocation trigger. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 trivial one-optional-param read tool with annotations covering safety, the description covers purpose, trigger, and return shape. Minor gaps — result ordering/newest-first assumption and language of editions — are not stated but are low-risk for correct invocation.

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 the single optional parameter "cantidad" is documented with its 1–5 range and default of 3. The description says nothing about it, adding no meaning beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb ("Devuelve") and resource ("últimas ediciones del Radar de IA") plus the fields returned (fecha, resumen, enlace). The scope — weekly AI news for businesses — is distinct from reference siblings like glosario_ia or ia_por_area, 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?

"Úsala cuando pregunten qué hay de nuevo en IA o qué cambió esta semana para las empresas" gives a concrete trigger condition. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., vs. glosario_ia for definitions), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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