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

With annotations already covering safety (readOnly, non-destructive), the description adds valuable context: it requires an account with `alertas:read` scope, advanced criteria require Pro plan and are ignored otherwise (informing in `ajustes`), and it returns warnings with `fix`. This goes beyond annotations meaningfully. It does not detail rate limits or other behavioral traits, but it's solid.

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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose, then requirements, then plan limitations. It is reasonably concise, though the plan-pro caveat could be slightly more concise. No wasted words.

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 a complex nested schema and an output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values. It covers scope requirements and plan limitations, which are crucial. It could mention the output structure more (e.g., `ajustes`) but the output schema likely covers that. Overall complete enough.

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 documents all parameters. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool previews an alert before creation, returning match count, a sample, and warnings with applicable `fix` for suspicious criteria. It distinguishes from siblings like alertas_crear by being explicitly a previsualization. However, it does not name alertas_crear or other siblings directly, so it's clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 says 'Antes de crear una alerta' which gives clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name the alternative tool, but the usage context is strong.

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