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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, and readOnly=false, and the description usefully extends this by stating that pending links are cancelled and that the session on the cinema's website is NOT revoked directly. That last caveat is exactly the kind of scope boundary annotations cannot express. It stops short of describing what state remains after disconnection or whether the operation can be undone.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its side effect, with no filler. The non-revocation caveat earns its place because it prevents a wrong assumption about session state.

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 present and rich annotations, the description only needs to cover scope and side effects, which it does. The one notable gap is the omitted `provider` parameter, which has no documentation anywhere.

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 0% for the single required parameter, so the description must carry the meaning of `provider` and it says nothing about it. The enum values are self-descriptive, but "en Cinev" in the description could even mislead an agent into thinking a fixed provider is implied rather than a selectable one.

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?

Names a specific verb (desconecta) and resource (la cuenta de cine del usuario) and adds the side effect of cancelling pending links, which makes it clearly the inverse of connect_account. It never names that sibling, so differentiation is by implication rather than explicit contrast.

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?

"Usar cuando el usuario pida desconectar" gives a trigger condition, but it essentially restates the tool name. There is no guidance on what to do when no account is linked, how it relates to get_auth_status, or what should happen instead when a session revocation is actually wanted.

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