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

Annotations already convey this is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, and the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the auth scope requirement, the confirmation-email side effect, and plan-dependent limits. It does not contradict the annotations (creating aligns with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false). It could go further on failure/validation behavior, but the disclosed side effects are a solid addition.

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 tight sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, then prerequisites/side-effects/limits, then the preview router. Front-loaded and zero waste for a tool of this complexity.

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 complexity — 6 params, 5 required, a nested criterios object with 12 sub-properties, and an output schema — the description covers the essential operational envelope: auth prerequisites, the email side effect, plan limits (with a pointer to ajustes), and the preview workflow. The fine-grained plan-dependent parameter behaviors are left to the schema, which already documents them, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it safely.

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 67%, and the schema itself is rich — it already documents plan-gating (cadencia 'instant' requires Pro, scoreMin/discountMinPct require Pro, 'inapp' always in canales). The description adds only a category-level summary (criterios, tipos, cadencia, canales) and a generic pointer to plan limits via ajustes, which mostly echoes the schema. It does not compensate for the undocumented params (quiet_hours structure, nombre limits), so a mid-range 3 is 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: "Crea una alerta de subastas" (creates an auction alert) and enumerates the alert's components (criterios, tipos de aviso, cadencia, canales). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like alertas_listar, alertas_eliminar, and alertas_activar, which cover other lifecycle stages.

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 gives explicit operational context: verified account with scope alertas:write is required, a confirmation email is sent, and limits depend on the plan (referencing ajustes). It also names an explicit alternative workflow — "Previsualiza antes con alertas_previsualizar" — telling the agent to preview before creating. It stops short of a full when-not matrix against all alert siblings (e.g., editing via alertas_editar), so it earns 4 rather than 5.

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