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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one important behavioral trait — determinism ('misma semilla = mismo resultado') — which meaningfully changes how an agent should call it. However it says nothing about cost, latency, side effects, or whether the result is persisted/minted, leaving significant gaps.

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, no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the determinism caveat follows immediately. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 annotations and no output schema, so the description must explain what the caller receives — a video file, an asset ID, an NFT, JSON metadata? It never does. For a five-parameter generative tool with a rich output surface, this is a substantial omission.

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 100% and four of five parameters carry enum definitions with their own descriptions, so the schema already documents the inputs. The description adds only the framing that these are 'parametros poeticos' and that seed crystallizes intent, which is marginal value over the schema.

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'), which is far more concrete than the bare name 'generate_composition' and clearly separates it from 'generate_contract'. It does not explicitly reference any sibling, but the domain (videodance art generation) is unmistakable.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the siblings (chat, generate_contract, describe_nft), nor any preconditions or exclusions. The only usage-adjacent hint is that a seed can reproduce a result, which is a property, not guidance.

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