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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does communicate that the tool analyzes performance metrics and returns a report with recommendations, implying a read-only analytical operation. However, it never explicitly states that no data is modified, nor does it disclose any operational costs, permissions, or potential impacts beyond returning a report.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main action, and clearly organized with a 'Returns' line. Every sentence adds value, covering what the tool does, what it analyzes, and what it produces, without unnecessary filler.

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 has no parameters and an output schema is present, the description covers the essential context: the metrics analyzed and the nature of the returned report. It is slightly incomplete in not framing the tool's role relative to other Hipocampo diagnostics or explicitly stating it is non-destructive, but overall it is sufficient for a zero-parameter stats tool.

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, so the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. The baseline for parameter-less tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the tool's behavior rather than inputs.

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 'Muestra estadísticas de rendimiento del sistema Hipocampo' and enumerates the specific metrics analyzed: query latency, methods used, average scores, and optimization recommendations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on health, maintenance, or search, giving an agent a concrete sense of the resource and purpose.

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 usage context is implied rather than explicit: it is a stats/reporting tool for performance analysis and optimization recommendations. However, it does not state when to prefer this over sibling tools like hipocampo_health, profile_hipocampo, or hipocampo_budget, nor does it provide exclusions or alternatives.

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