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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does provide real behavioral insight: it reveals the embedding-based mechanism, the negation-probe prompt, and the exact distance-comparison criterion ('Si la distancia... → señal de contradicción'). It does not explicitly state that no mutation occurs, but 'Detecta' implies a read-only analysis.

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 definition is compact and front-loaded: one purpose sentence, one algorithm sentence, one condition sentence, and one parameter definition. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core calling details and algorithm, which is largely complete. However, it lacks usage context and exclusions, and it never explicitly states side effects or read-only behavior; given the absence of annotations, this leaves a small but real gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The 'Args' section adds semantic meaning to memory_id beyond the bare integer schema: it defines it as the numeric ID of the memory in memoria_vectorial. This is sufficient for the single parameter.

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 opens with 'Detecta contradicciones semánticas de una memoria existente', a specific verb and resource that clearly identifies the tool's function. This purpose is unique among the sibling tools, none of which mention semantic contradiction detection, so an agent can distinguish it without ambiguity.

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 explains what the tool does and how ('Usa negation-probe embedding...') but never states when to prefer it over alternatives such as review_automatica or when not to use it. There is no explicit exclusion or decision rule.

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