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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the eligibility filter (infrastructure profile, 150/180 days), the two outcomes (reinforce resets counter, or allow decay), and a recommended cadence. However, it says nothing about what dry_run actually changes in behavior, nor about side effects of reinforcement beyond the counter reset.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, the bullet list cleanly separates the two possible actions, and the cadence note closes it out. Some framing is redundant ('El agente puede:') but the structure is efficient and scannable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the review/decide workflow is described adequately. The gap is the unaddressed dry_run parameter and the absence of any guidance on which sibling tool to prefer for automated versus manual review.

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% for the single parameter dry_run, which defaults to true. The description never mentions dry_run or what a dry run returns versus a real run, so it fails to compensate for the documentation gap. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, which keeps this from scoring 1.

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?

States a specific verb (review) and resource (trade knowledge memories), and narrows scope precisely: domain_profile='infrastructure' memories at 150+ days out of 180 without access. An agent can tell what this does at a glance. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives like review_automatica or decay_hipocampo, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 cadence ('cada 3 meses via systemd timer o manualmente') implies when to invoke, and the two action branches (reinforce vs allow decay) frame the workflow. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus siblings such as review_automatica or decay_hipocampo, and no prerequisites stated.

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