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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is a paid API (0.02 USD per call) with a specific payment method (x402/USDC on Base), and it normalizes input into a structured JSON backlog. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand cost and output 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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes pricing. It is concise and every part adds value, though it could be slightly more structured with a separate sentence for pricing. Overall, it is efficient and well-organized.

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 full schema coverage and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains the input (CSV), the output (prioritized JSON backlog with specific fields), and the cost. The only minor gap is not specifying the exact CSV format or headers, but the schema already says 'CSV con cabecera (máx. 1 MB)' and the description lists the output fields, which implies the expected input structure.

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 single 'csv' parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds context about what the CSV contains (candidates for SaaS acquisition experiments) and the output fields, but it does not add syntax, format, or example details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('normaliza'), a clear resource ('candidatos de experimentos de adquisición SaaS'), and the output format ('backlog JSON ordenado por prioridad'). It also lists the fields included, which distinguishes it from generic backlog tools. The sibling 'ordenar-backlog-experimentos' is close, but this description's emphasis on normalizing candidates and the paid API nature helps differentiate it.

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 description implies usage: it takes CSV candidates and returns a prioritized JSON backlog. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus 'ordenar-backlog-experimentos' or other sibling tools, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives. The pricing and x402 payment detail provide some context, but no explicit when-to-use guidance.

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