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

Beyond the annotations (which only say it is a non-readonly, non-idempotent mutation), the description discloses an auth scope requirement, a concrete side effect (confirmation email), and plan-dependent quota limits referenced via `ajustes`. This is substantive behavioral context, though failure/idempotency behavior is left to the annotations.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying a distinct load (purpose, precondition, side effect, limits, alternative) with the core action front-loaded.

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 6-param mutation with nested objects and an output schema present, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: what it does, auth requirement, side effect, quota dependency, and the read-only alternative. Return values need not be explained given the output schema.

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 every parameter and nested criterion is already documented in the schema. The description only names the top-level fields and adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, matching the baseline-3 rule.

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 ('Crea') and resource ('alerta de subastas') and enumerates the defining fields (criterios, tipos, cadencia, canales), which cleanly separates it from alertas_editar, alertas_eliminar, and alertas_activar.

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 preconditions ('Requiere cuenta verificada', scope `alertas:write`) and points to the non-mutating alternative ('Los mismos criterios se pueden previsualizar sin crear nada'), which effectively routes the agent to alertas_previsualizar. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly.

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