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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing real consequences: the text is sent to external AI providers, it consumes ONE query from the plan and AI spend, and it returns jobId/status rather than the answer. The retry contract (reuse the same UUID for the same question, never change the message under that key) is behavioral detail the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool does, then cost, then prerequisite, then return/retry guidance in priority order. Dense but every sentence carries operational weight; only the dash-separated clauses make it slightly heavier than necessary.

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, yet the description still names the returned jobId/status and the tool that consumes it, plus cost and retry behavior. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly — prerequisites, spend implications, next step — is missing.

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 already 83%, so most parameters are documented. The description still adds value by giving the idempotency_key its operational semantics — one fresh UUID per question, reuse only for retries of the identical message — which sharpens the schema's terser wording.

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?

Opening sentence gives a specific verb (crea) plus resource (consulta) and explains the actual mechanics: two independent initial analyses plus a cross-review by each model. It also routes to the sibling duos_obtener_resultado for the result, so an agent can distinguish this from list/quota tools without opening a schema.

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 states the precondition (requires client intent), an explicit when-not (do not use as a free connection check), and the follow-up alternative (query jobId/status via duos_obtener_resultado). The retry rule for idempotency_key is also spelled out in operational terms.

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