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

Annotations already provide a rich safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description's burden is lower. It adds useful context beyond the schema — the output is 'limpio y ordenado por prioridad' and the call costs 0.01 USD via x402 — but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as failure modes, rate limits, or how priority is determined.

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 short sentences with the core transformation front-loaded and the cost detail second. No wasted words; the pricing sentence earns its place for cost-aware tool selection.

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 single-parameter tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the input domain, the output form (JSON backlog ordered by priority, agent-consumable), and cost. It does not describe the output structure in detail, which matters more because no output schema exists, but the simplicity of the tool limits the 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 coverage is 100% for the single 'csv' parameter, but the description adds meaning by specifying the expected content ('experimentos de adquisición'), which the schema's generic 'CSV con cabecera' does not convey. This helps an agent prepare correct input beyond what the schema alone documents.

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 a specific transformation — receiving an acquisition-experiment CSV and returning a clean, priority-ordered JSON backlog for agent consumption. The domain and output format are specific enough to narrow scope, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the near-sibling 'prioriza-backlog', so an agent still must infer the distinction from scope rather than being told.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit: an agent can infer this tool is for turning acquisition-experiment CSVs into an ordered JSON backlog. However, there is no when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the overlapping siblings 'prioriza-backlog' or 'normalizar-requisitos-csv', leaving the routing decision to inference.

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