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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value by bounding scope: no new planning, no external side effects, and the caller must adapt the output. It doesn't state what the response looks like, but an output schema exists.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is produced, then the exclusions. Efficient; the only mild cost is the dense negative list which reads as a single run-on clause rather than scannable items.

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 an output schema and rich annotations in place, the description only needed to convey purpose, boundaries and the caller's responsibility — and it does. It even notes that both response formats include structuredContent, closing the enum's behavioral question.

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 goal, guide_id and response_format are already fully documented with examples in the schema. The description corroborates that guide + goal together form the input but adds no format or constraint detail beyond it. 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?

States a specific verb (reúne) and the two inputs it combines (guía + objetivo), then enumerates the artifacts produced: requisitos, pasos, ejercicio, referencias y reglas de trabajo. An agent can distinguish it from buscar_skills/obtener_guia, which retrieve guides rather than assemble a starting point. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so no explicit 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 second sentence gives clear negative guidance — it does not generate a new plan, install, publish, or call external services — which prevents an agent from over-expecting. It also tells the assistant to adapt the returned steps to the goal. Missing an explicit ordering hint (e.g. 'call after obtener_guia to get guide_id').

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