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

The annotations already mark the operation read-only and idempotent; the description adds valuable behavioral detail: Pro-plan-dependent criteria are silently ignored and reported in `ajustes`, and warnings include an applicable `fix`. It also states the OAuth scope requirement. No contradiction with 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?

Three dense sentences front-load the purpose, then state the prerequisite and the non-obvious Pro-plan behavior. No filler or repetition of schema information.

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 preview tool, the description covers purpose, triggering context, auth scope, plan-dependent behavior, and warning output. The existing output schema and nested input schema handle the remaining structural detail.

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?

The top-level `criterios` parameter lacks a schema description (0% coverage per signals), and the description only names two advanced fields (`scoreMin`, `discountMinPct`) with their Pro-plan fallback. However, the nested schema carries rich per-field descriptions, and the description's context makes the role of `criterios` clear, so this is minimally viable rather than a complete gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource: previewing an alert before creation, and states exactly what it returns—matching auction count, a sample, and warnings with fixes. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like alertas_crear, alertas_activar, and alertas_listar, which all have different operations.

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 clear trigger context—'Antes de crear una alerta'—and a prerequisite (account with scope alertas:read). It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it stops one step 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.