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 useful behavior beyond that: it returns available ('libres') names first, establishing output ordering, and frames itself as a secondary fallback. It does not cover rate limits or the availability-checking mechanism, so not a 5.

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, both front-loaded and earning their place: the first establishes what the tool does and its output ordering, the second routes the agent to the better alternative. Zero filler.

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?

No output schema, so the description must carry the return-value story, and it does state that free names come first. It falls just short of complete because the pais parameter (likely scoping the availability check to a country) is neither explained nor referenced.

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 50%: descripcion and semillas are already documented in the schema and the description merely restates them ('descripción', 'palabras semilla opcionales') without adding syntax or format detail. The other two parameters (pais, cuantos) are untouched, so the description only partially compensates for the coverage gap – baseline 3.

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 (propone/devuelve) and resource (nombres para un proyecto) and names the sibling verificar_nombres as the preferred route, so an agent can distinguish this tool from its siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('Es un respaldo') and when not to ('si puedes, genera tus propias ideas y revísalas con verificar_nombres, que da mejores nombres'). The alternative tool and the condition that selects it are both named.

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