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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses that data is sent to 2ds, that the diagnostic is free, and that consent must be confirmed. This complements the openWorldHint and idempotentHint annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second provides the prerequisite action. No filler or unnecessary repetition.

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 request-style tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough context to call it correctly: what to do, what to confirm, and what data is used. It could briefly mention what happens after the request, but this is not a critical gap.

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 parameters are already fully documented. The description adds contextual framing around 'datos' and privacy acceptance but does not need to repeat parameter details.

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 action: request a free AI-assistant visibility diagnosis from 2ds for the user's business. It uses a specific verb and resource, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool comprobar_visibilidad_ia.

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 explicitly tells the agent to confirm the user's data and consent before calling, which is strong usage guidance. It does not mention when the sibling comprobar_visibilidad_ia should be used instead, so alternatives are not covered.

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