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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavioural context beyond them: it does not consume queries and does not expose other clients or global spend, which clarifies privacy and cost side effects.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the return payload followed by two negative-scope clarifications. Every sentence carries distinct value and nothing is redundant.

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 and annotations are rich, so return values and safety profile need no elaboration. The description covers what is and isn't returned, leaving only minor gaps like pagination or freshness of the quota figures.

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?

Only one optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the enum for response_format is fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 and resource plus the exact fields returned (plan, available queries, own AI budget) via 'Devuelve el plan, las consultas disponibles y el presupuesto propio de IA'. Scope exclusions ('no muestra otros clientes ni el gasto global') help separate it, but no sibling tool is named explicitly.

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?

'No genera respuestas ni consume consultas' implicitly steers agents away from expecting generation, implying this is a read-only status check. However, no explicit when-to-use condition or alternative (e.g. duos_listar_consultas) is named.

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