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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: determinism ('misma semilla = mismo resultado'), which tells the agent results are reproducible and seed-driven. However, it does not say what a 'composicion' actually is on return (video, asset URL, JSON, identifier), nor whether anything is persisted, which matters for a generative tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the most decision-relevant property (determinism). Nothing is redundant, though the description is arguably too thin for a five-parameter generative tool rather than padded.

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 and all five parameters optional, the description should explain what comes back and what happens when called with no arguments, and it does neither. An agent cannot tell whether it receives a video, a file reference, or a seed-derived identifier, nor whether omitting mood/energy/gender/perspective yields a valid default composition.

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% and every parameter carries its own description and enum, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces the meaning of 'semilla' via the determinism sentence and frames the parameters collectively as 'poeticos', but adds no format, default, or interaction guidance beyond that.

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 ('Genera una composicion unica de videodanza') plus the input domain ('parametros poeticos'), so an agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'composicion_premium' or 'variaciones_estilo', which likely generate similar artifacts, so the agent must guess which generator to pick.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing guidance relative to the other generation tools in the sibling list. The only usage hint is implied by 'a partir de parametros poeticos', which suggests a parameter-driven generation path but never says why to choose it over composicion_premium or variaciones_estilo.

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