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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: auth scope requirement (`alertas:read`), and that advanced criteria are silently ignored on non-Pro plans but reported in `ajustes` – a non-obvious degradation path.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the workflow purpose, then outputs, then auth, then the plan caveat. No filler; each sentence carries distinct 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and the description still names the key outputs (match count, sample, `ajustes` warnings). Auth scope and plan gating are covered. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the nested `criterios` object is richly documented in-schema, including Pro gating and format hints. The description restates the Pro requirement for `scoreMin`/`discountMinPct` but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 action (preview an alert), what it returns (match count, sample, fix-applicable warnings), and positions it relative to siblings by opening with 'Antes de crear una alerta', clearly distinguishing it from alertas_crear.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('Antes de crear una alerta') and ties it to the creation workflow. It also names the plan-gating condition for advanced criteria, giving the agent enough to decide when results will be limited.

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