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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds auth requirements ('cuenta verificada', scope `alertas:write`) and reinforces non-destructive behavior ('sin borrarla'), which is useful context beyond the structured fields.

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 short sentences with zero waste. The primary action is front-loaded before the auth requirement, making it easy to scan and act on.

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?

The tool has only two simple parameters, an output schema, and rich annotations covering safety/idempotency. The description adds the necessary auth scope and non-delete clarification, leaving nothing important for an agent to guess.

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 fully documents both `id` and `activa`. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable given the complete schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 pair ('Activa o pausa') and resource ('una alerta tuya'), and explicitly clarifies that it does not delete ('sin borrarla'), which distinguishes it from the sibling alertas_eliminar. An agent can route this correctly without opening any schema.

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 a prerequisite (verified account, scope `alertas:write`), which is useful context, but does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like alertas_editar or alertas_eliminar. The usage is implied from the verb but not contrasted with siblings.

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