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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and non-openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the batch limit of 100 ids and the accepted id format, which an agent needs to call it correctly.

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-loads the core behavior in the first sentence, then gives sources and format constraints. The long source list is somewhat heavy but earns its place by documenting the otherwise undescribed fuente enum.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the job of explaining the return (ids in all other databases). Both parameters are addressed and the batch/format constraints are stated, leaving little an agent needs before invoking it.

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 only 50% and the fuente enum has no inline description, so the description compensates by enumerating every valid source and explaining that id must match the store URL form and can hold up to 100 comma-separated values. This meaningfully extends the schema.

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+resource: given an id in one store/database, find the game's record and return its ids across all the others, with a concrete example (Xbox id → Steam appid). It is clearly distinct from buscar_juegos and ficha_juego in function, though it never names those siblings explicitly to contrast.

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?

Gives operational guidance (id format as it appears in the store URL, up to 100 comma-separated ids) but no when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use relative to the sibling tools. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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