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

Beyond the annotations (which only declare it is not read-only/idempotent/destructive), the description discloses three concrete traits: the auth requirement (verified account + `alertas:write` scope), a side effect (a confirmation email is sent on creation), and quota behavior (alert/channel limits depend on plan via `ajustes`). These are exactly the auth-needs and rate-limit context the rubric rewards.

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?

Five tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the creation action and followed by requirements, side effect, limits, and the preview recommendation. No filler, though the density of separate clauses makes it slightly more than the bare minimum needed.

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 write tool with 6 params, nested objects, and an output schema, the description covers the practical gaps: purpose, prerequisites, side effects, limits, and a safer alternative. Return values are handled by the output schema, so nothing essential is missing.

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%, including enums and nested criteria/quiet_hours docs, so the schema carries parameter semantics. The description only restates the top-level groups (criterios, tipos, cadencia, canales) without adding new meaning, which is the correct baseline of 3.

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 ("Crea una alerta de subastas") and enumerates what the alert is composed of (criterios, tipos de aviso, cadencia, canales), so an agent immediately knows the shape of the payload. It also names a sibling (alertas_previsualizar), making it distinguishable from the other alertas_* tools.

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?

Gives a clear prerequisite (verified account with scope `alertas:write`) and explicitly routes the agent to `alertas_previsualizar` before creating. There is no explicit "when not to use" (e.g. prefer alertas_editar for existing alerts), so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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