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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: what the quick check covers (dominios, web, npm) and that trademarks are excluded ('sin marcas registradas'), which explains why a cheaper pass is acceptable here.

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, zero filler, and the key qualifiers ('RÁPIDA', the 10-item cap, the sibling hand-off) are front-loaded. Everything stated earns its place.

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?

Adequate for a read-only batch check: purpose, scope, limit, and the escalation path to verificar_nombre are all present, and no output schema exists so return values need no explanation. Minor gap: the undocumented 'pais' parameter is left unexplained and the result shape of the quick pass is not hinted 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 67% ('nombres' and 'descripcion' documented, 'pais' not). The description repeats the 10-item cap already encoded as maxItems but adds no syntax, format, or country meaning, so it neither compensates for the coverage gap nor misleads.

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+resource ('Revisión RÁPIDA de varios nombres a la vez') with explicit scope: domains, web and npm, up to 10 per call. It distinguishes itself from sibling verificar_nombre by labeling this the quick pass versus the 'revisión completa'.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('filtrar una lista de ideas que tú mismo generaste') and names the follow-up alternative ('luego pasa el o los mejores por verificar_nombre para la revisión completa'). The routing between the two verification siblings is unambiguous.

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