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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only states what it verifies and that it returns a 'Reporte formateado'. 'Verifica' implies a diagnostic, non-destructive operation, but the description never explicitly states it is read-only, whether the NVIDIA API check may be slow or fail, or whether it only reports rather than repairs — a meaningful ambiguity given the sibling hipocampo_auto_repair.

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 tight and front-loaded: a purpose line, a verification list, and a return note in under 25 words. The 'Returns:' line is slightly redundant given an output schema exists, but every other sentence earns its place and the structure is easy to parse.

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 0-parameter, low-complexity tool with an output schema, the description covers what it does, what it checks, and what it returns. Clear gaps remain: it never clarifies that the operation is non-destructive, and it does not position itself against relevant siblings like hipocampo_stats or hipocampo_auto_repair, which an agent needs when selecting among diagnostic tools.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so the baseline 4 applies — parameter semantics are trivially satisfied and the description needs no parameter documentation. No additional meaning is required.

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 leads with a specific verb and resource — 'Ejecuta un health check completo del sistema Hipocampo' — and enumerates the exact verification scope: PostgreSQL, NVIDIA API, tablas, espacio en disco, extensiones. The function is clearly stated and practically distinguishable from maintenance/repair siblings, though it never explicitly names a sibling it is not.

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 listed verifications (PostgreSQL, NVIDIA API, tables, disk, extensions) imply the tool is for checking system integrity, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. Given 36 sibling tools such as hipocampo_stats, hipocampo_maintenance, and hipocampo_auto_repair, the description offers no guidance for choosing among related diagnostics.

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