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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden, and it does disclose the auth/quota model (valid access key, free uses or credits, pointer to POST /crear-llave) plus defaults for rules and threshold — genuinely useful behavioral context. However, it never states what the tool returns (hold/allow decision, rationale, confidence) or whether it is purely advisory rather than blocking, which matters for a gate-style tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the decision the tool makes and followed by workflow placement, with no filler. The embedded endpoint reference is compact and serves the auth requirement.

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?

There is no output schema, and since this tool's entire value is a decision, the absence of any statement about the returned verdict or reason is a meaningful gap. Input semantics are well covered via the schema plus the description's policy explanation, but a runtime gate should tell the agent what it gets back.

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%, so the schema already documents rules, action, and threshold, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds conceptual meaning by explaining what each rule category targets and that an amount above the threshold triggers retention, but it adds no syntax or format details beyond that.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it evaluates a proposed agent action and decides between human-review hold versus auto-approval under a retention policy, enumerating the exact criteria (destructiveHint, irreversible verbs, openWorldHint, amount threshold, free-form code arguments). This is clearly distinct from the static detect_* siblings, though it never names an alternative tool to contrast with.

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?

It gives explicit positioning — 'use it as the last step before an agent executes a potentially risky action' — which tells the agent where in a workflow to invoke it. There is no when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., whether to call it for obviously benign actions) and no named alternative.

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