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

Annotations already convey read-only behavior and a closed-world hint. The description adds that the content is answers to common questions about 2ds, but does not describe response format or that no input is required. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 one short sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the resource scope and purpose efficiently.

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 zero-parameter, read-only FAQ tool, the description is largely complete: an agent can select it correctly and invoke it without inputs. A minor gap is that it does not explicitly state what the response looks like, but no complex output schema is present and the purpose is simple.

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 input schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description's mention of '2ds' and 'dudas habituales' provides the only scoping context, which is sufficient; the score reflects the zero-parameter baseline.

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 states the tool returns answers to common questions about 2ds, which is a clear resource and function. It is not a tautology of the title and is distinguishable from sibling tools by its FAQ-focused purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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?

The phrase 'dudas habituales' implies the tool is for common questions about 2ds, so usage context is inferable. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use it versus sibling tools such as 'servicios' or 'solicitar_diagnostico'.

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