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

Annotations already mark read-only/idempotent/non-destructive; the description adds crucial behavioral context: call once before the real capability, no auth required, and return values are verified with source/date, with null meaning unknown. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Dense but every sentence earns its place: usage conditions, output content, call ordering, exclusions, auth, and data provenance. The key 'when to use' condition is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description states the shape of the return ('capacidad concreta, datos a reunir, qué NO hacer') and adds data-quality caveats. It also covers auth and call timing, making the tool fully actionable despite its routing complexity.

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?

Only 50% schema description coverage, but the narrative compensates by mapping several situacion values to concrete actions ('crear una semana, leer la que ya tiene, recolocarla...'). It does not explicitly describe every enum value (e.g., hace_otro_deporte, senal_clinica), and tiene_plan is left to the schema.

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 tool as a router: 'Devuelve la capacidad concreta que resuelve esa situación.' It specifies the resource (next action in Vida de aquí) and distinguishes itself from the concrete capabilities it recommends ('esta herramienta no crea, no lee ni adapta ninguna semana').

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 explicit when-to-use ('cuando ya sepas... pero no tengas claro cuál de sus capacidades corresponde') and explicit when-not-to-use with an alternative ('NO la uses si ya sabes qué capacidades necesitas: llama directamente a esa'), plus exclusions for out-of-scope questions.

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