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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint; the description adds real behavioral context: the 10–40 second latency from querying official registries, the sources consulted, the returned verdict with evidence/links/dates, and the caveat "No es un concepto jurídico." This goes well beyond the 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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then sources, return format, and usage directive. Dense and nearly waste-free, though the long single-paragraph run-on of source lists is slightly heavier than needed.

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 fully compensates: it explains the return shape (libre/parecido/ocupado with evidence, links, dates), the sources, the latency, and the legal limitation. An agent has everything needed to call it and act on the result.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the reasoning that descripcion determines which collisions matter. The description adds only marginal framing (country-specific domain variants tied to país) rather than new syntax or format guidance, so the 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 (revisa/verifica) and resource (nombre de proyecto, marca, app o empresa) with the exact sources it checks (SIC Colombia, EUIPO, domains, web, GitHub, npm) and the verdict format. Extremely concrete. It does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling verificar_nombres (plural), so it falls short of the sibling-differentiation bar for a 5.

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 a strong explicit directive ("ÚSALA SIEMPRE antes de recomendar un nombre") plus the branch action when the verdict is "ocupado" (propose another and re-verify). However, it never names the alternative tools (sugerir_nombres / verificar_nombres) or when to prefer them, so the routing guidance is incomplete.

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