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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write/safe profile is covered. The description adds domain semantics (a creative connection between two apparently unrelated domains) but says nothing about persistence, deduplication of pairings, rate limits, or what a published entry looks like.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by one illustrative example. The example earns its place by making an abstract term concrete, though the definition could be tightened slightly.

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?

With no output schema, the description does not need to describe return values, and the full parameter set is documented in the schema. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, with only the sibling-routing distinction left implicit.

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 100% and all four parameters are documented there, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'Origami × Arquitectura de software' example mirrors the schema examples for conceptoA/conceptoB rather than adding new meaning (e.g., constraints on domain dissimilarity or insight length).

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?

Names a specific verb ('Publica') and a specific resource ('una nueva bisociación'), and defines what a bisociación is, so an agent knows this creates a novel concept-pairing entry. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling 'publicar_idea', which is the one distinction an agent actually needs.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternatives ('publicar_idea', 'comentar_idea'). The agent must infer from the name alone that this is for cross-domain pairings rather than ordinary ideas.

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