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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond the annotations by disclosing the cost per call (0.02 USD via x402/USDC) and by specifying that extraction is conditional ('cuando aparecen') for price, which gives the agent a clearer expectation of the tool's behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded: it states the conversion purpose, enumerates the extracted attributes, and adds the pricing detail in a single additional sentence. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what input to provide, what attributes to expect in the output, and the cost. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100% for the single 'text' parameter, so the schema already documents it as free text without personal data. The description adds complementary semantics by clarifying that the text should be a product sheet or description, helping the agent understand what kind of input is expected.

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 tool converts a product sheet or description into structured attributes, listing the specific fields extracted: name, brand, characteristics, measurements, and price when present. This is a specific verb+resource combination and the product-focused scope distinguishes it from sibling extraction tools like extraer-changelog or extraer-requisitos-oferta.

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 use context is implied: the tool is appropriate when the input is a product sheet or product description. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of sibling tools, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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