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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two non-obvious traits: a hard cost ('$0.01 USD por consulta (x402)') and that the output is deterministic rule content, not model generation ('Sin biblioteca ni IA'). It also enumerates what the response contains (normas, tasas SIC, clases de Niza sugeridas, plazos, alertas R1–R8), though it says nothing about payment failure behavior or latency.

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 and scope are front-loaded in the first clause, followed by output contents and then the cost caveat. It is dense but every sentence carries information; 'Experto en Marcas:' is slight filler and 'Sin biblioteca ni IA' is terse enough to be ambiguous, but overall there is little waste.

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 9-parameter, all-optional, no-output-schema tool, the description does the important work: it enumerates the deliverable artifacts (normas, tasas, clases sugeridas, plazos, alertas R1–R8) and flags the payment requirement. The remaining gap is sibling differentiation against registro_marca__consultar, which an agent must guess at.

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 all nine parameters are already documented with constraints and two enums. The description adds only loose echoes ('clases de Niza sugeridas', 'revisión del signo') and does not clarify how marca/pregunta/contexto interact or which combinations are required, 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'registro de marca en Colombia' plus 'Trámite y autoridad, paso a paso', which frames it as a procedural roadmap rather than a lookup. It never names the sibling registro_marca__consultar, so the distinction is inferable ('paso a paso' vs. a plain query) but not explicit.

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 phrase 'paso a paso con sus normas, tasas oficiales... plazos y alertas' implies this is the tool for someone walking through the filing process, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no routing to registro_marca__consultar or verificador_sic__verificar. Usage is implied rather than instructed.

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