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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior—ordering from newest to oldest and inclusion of sources—but does not mention pagination, result limits, or how many items are returned.

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 definition is a single compact sentence with no filler, and the key information—resource, publisher scope, time window, ordering, and sources—is front-loaded. Every phrase contributes to selecting and interpreting the tool.

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?

Given the high schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description is almost complete: it explains what is returned and in what order. It still omits result-count or pagination behavior, and it does not clarify how this differs from sibling tools.

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%, and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the default and range for dias. The description only echoes the capsule scope and recent-days framing, so it adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema baseline.

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 identifies the returned resource: reviewed syntheses published by a capsule in recent days, ordered newest to oldest and with sources. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings such as noticia or buscar, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 only usage signal is the implicit scope of 'últimos días'; there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance. It never names alternatives like buscar, noticia, or capsulas, so an agent must infer routing from the name and schema.

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