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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool evaluates and verifies mechanisms but does not explicitly state whether it has side effects (e.g., read-only). The behavior is inferred as safe evaluation, but the description lacks explicit safety/permission disclosure.

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?

The description is two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with core purpose. Every word 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?

Given the tool's complexity (autonomy levels, risk mechanisms, structured output) and no output schema, the description gives a reasonable overview. It mentions output returns a 'structured evaluation brief', but lacks details on the brief's content or structure. Still sufficient for agent selection.

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%, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond 'receives agent definition' and 'returns structured brief'. It does not elaborate on parameter usage or behavior beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: determining appropriate autonomy level (copiloto/ejecutor supervisado/autónomo con guardrails) and verifying risk reduction mechanisms. It also specifies input (agent definition) and output (structured evaluation brief), distinguishing it from sibling tools like evaluar_necesidad or evaluar_sistema.

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?

The description implies usage for autonomy evaluation but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., evaluar_necesidad, evaluar_sistema). No 'when not to use' or comparison to siblings is mentioned.

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