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

Goes well beyond annotations: it discloses that every RFC in the list is checked and each consumes balance (ESTADO service), that the rate lives in consultar_precios, and that if balance runs out the call halts and returns the partial set already reviewed. This explains exactly why readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false — the call spends credits and is not repeatable for free — which the annotations alone could not convey.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the highest-value facts (cap, filter, cost, partial-result behavior) with no filler. It is somewhat run-on and packs the cost model into a parenthetical, which slightly hurts scanability but not substance.

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 paid, non-idempotent batch tool with no output schema, the description covers the crucial operational risks: credit consumption, rate lookup location, the 200-RFC ceiling, and truncation on exhausted balance. What is missing is any hint of the response shape (per-RFC status fields) and the semantics when solo_cambios is left false.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and largely succeeds: 'rfcs' is the list capped at 200, 'desde' takes AAAA-MM-DD format, and 'solo_cambios=true' restricts output to records that moved after that date. It stops short of stating what solo_cambios=false returns or how 'desde' interacts with it by default.

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: a quick revision of up to 200 RFCs that returns those that changed status under 69-B / article 69. The scope and cap are concrete, but the description never distinguishes it from plausible siblings such as revision_rapida, screening_monitorear or verificar_empresa, so an agent must infer which one to pick.

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?

Usage is implied through configuration: 'Con desde (AAAA-MM-DD) y solo_cambios=true devuelve solo los que se movieron' tells the agent how to get the filtered result. However, there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not statement, no named alternative for full (non-filtered) revisions, and no guidance on choosing between this and the other screening tools.

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