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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It accurately describes the returned content (information and link) and implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose any response format, potential variant, or limitations (e.g., availability). For a simple informational tool, this is adequate but not richly transparent.

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 sentence that is clear, front-loaded, and contains no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and low complexity, the description is sufficient. It tells the user exactly what to expect (information and link) without needing to explain return values or side effects. A small gap is that it doesn't mention whether the link is external or in-app, but this is minor.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining what the returned information contains (booking link) but doesn't need to clarify semantics for nonexistent params.

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 clearly states the tool's function: returning information and a booking link for a free 25-minute initial assessment. The verb 'Devuelve' (returns) is specific, and the resource is well-defined, distinguishing it from siblings about credentials, services, and articles.

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 description implies usage when a user needs details on the free initial assessment, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings. There are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions. It is sufficient but lacks explicit context.

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