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

With no annotations present, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool is destructive, modifies thresholds and weights irreversibly, is idempotent with convergent results, and should be used with caution. This is exactly the kind of context an agent needs before invoking a mutating tool.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: purpose first, then behavioral warnings, then alternatives, then usage conditions, and finally return value. Every sentence adds relevant information; nothing is wasted.

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?

The description is complete for a destructive, parameterless tool without annotations. It covers purpose, side effects, idempotency, recommended conditions, alternatives, and expected return output. An agent has all the information needed to decide whether and when to invoke this 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 input schema provides nothing to clarify. The description appropriately focuses on behavior and return value rather than parameter details. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies because no additional parameter semantics are necessary.

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 a specific action ('Ajusta automáticamente los thresholds y pesos del SSC') based on accumulated performance metrics. It also distinguishes itself from related tools by explicitly naming hipocampo_stats and hipocampo_maintenance, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: run only after at least 100 recorded queries, and avoid if the system is functioning correctly. It also names alternatives for read-only stats (hipocampo_stats) and the full maintenance cycle (hipocampo_maintenance).

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