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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly indicates a read-like operation ('Devuelve'), but does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or response structure beyond the basic data included. For a simple retrieval tool, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose and output. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool returns: services, prices, and URLs. It does not detail the exact response format or pagination, but for a straightforward list endpoint, this is sufficient. It could be more explicit about the data type, but overall it is complete for the intended use.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema already fully defines the input. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. It effectively communicates what the output contains, which compensates for the lack of an output schema.

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 purpose: it returns online psychology services from Renacer Psicológico, including prices and URLs. The verb 'Devuelve' (returns) is specific, and the resource is well-defined, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_free_assessment_info or search_clinical_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 the list of services and prices, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or preferred scenarios are mentioned, so it relies on the user to infer context from the purpose.

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