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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: the MONITOREO_SCREEN webhook, the signed event, the NEW-match trigger, and the need to register the endpoint separately. 'El alta' also confirms a registration side effect, consistent with readOnlyHint=false. It does not discuss duplicate registrations, but annotations already signal non-idempotency.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The core purpose, webhook behavior, parameters, and cost are all front-loaded or clearly separated, and every sentence earns its place.

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 simple 3-parameter tool, the description is mostly adequate: it explains the async outcome (webhook) and a key prerequisite (endpoint registration). However, with no output schema, it does not describe the immediate confirmation response or the webhook payload, and it does not mention how to stop monitoring.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It only repeats that 'name' is sent and 'country' and 'tax_id' are optional, which the schema already expresses through required/default fields. It adds no format, value, or semantic detail for country or tax_id.

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 action ('vigila un nombre'), the resource (sanctions/PEP/national lists), and the outcome (a signed webhook on a NEW match). It implies a monitoring behavior distinct from a one-time list search, though it does not explicitly name the sibling screening_listas tool.

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?

Ongoing monitoring is implied through 'recibirás un webhook' and 'coincidencia NUEVA', but the description never states when to choose this tool over a one-time search or provides explicit exclusions. It gives context about registering a webhook endpoint but no direct alternative guidance.

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