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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotency, but the description adds real value: it specifies that the read installs no connectors and calls no providers, warns that declared connections are 'declaraciones, no verificaciones', and adds an approval safeguard before publishing, spending or activating flows. These caveats go beyond the annotation flags.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by procedure and then safety caveats, with no filler. The semicolon-heavy chain is dense but every clause carries information; it could be split for readability but nothing is wasted.

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, full parameter coverage and annotations covering safety, the major remaining gap is routing: the description never explains when this tool is preferred over obtener_guia, preparar_proyecto or buscar_skills. The behavioral caveats are adequate, but sibling disambiguation is missing for a tool whose purpose overlaps with several siblings.

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% and the schema descriptions already carry the caveats about client and available_connections not proving compatibility. The description's note that connections are declarations, not verifications, reinforces but does not materially extend the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 says it retrieves a procedure, deliverables and a guided connection for the client's assistant, which is a real verb+resource. However, the phrasing is abstract and it never distinguishes this tool from siblings like obtener_guia or preparar_proyecto, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which of them applies.

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?

It gives an internal execution order ('Seguir primero connection_setup...'), but that is guidance on what to do after calling, not when to choose this tool over alternatives. No condition, prerequisite, or sibling exclusion is stated.

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