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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description's added value is the dual-mode behavior: a no-argument call returns the questionnaire, and the recommender is the same logic as missyera.com. It does not describe what is returned when all five answers are supplied, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and outcome set, then the trigger, then the calling convention. The third sentence partially restates the first sentence's enumeration, which is mild waste but keeps the definition readable.

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 read-only tool with no output schema and fully documented enums, the definition covers what the tool does, when to use it, and the empty-argument discovery flow. The one omission is what the response looks like on a fully answered call (presumably the recommended solution, but unstated).

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% with enums and per-field descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description names the five dimensions (dolor, objetivo, cuello de botella, preferencia, perfil) but adds no interpretation beyond what the schema already states.

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 and resource ('Recomienda el tipo de solución de IA') and enumerates the four possible outcomes (agentes, automatización, consultoría, capacitación), which lets an agent distinguish it from calcular_roi_ia, calcular_ahorro_tiempo_ia or diagnostico_madurez_ia without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ('Úsala cuando una empresa no sepa si necesita un agente, automatizar...') plus a concrete calling pattern ('Llamada sin argumentos, devuelve las preguntas y sus opciones'), which resolves the ambiguity of all-optional params. It does not name a sibling as the alternative for adjacent cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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