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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of authentication requirements, whether duplicate ideas are rejected, or what publishing triggers downstream, which matters for an openWorld write operation.

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?

A single short sentence with no waste and the action front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than deliberately concise.

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 two-parameter write tool with complete schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly. What is missing is behavioral context around a mutation in an open-world system: validation rules, duplicate handling, or failure modes.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including that 'tags' is optional, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about the 'texto' content expectations or tag formatting.

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 and resource ('Publica una nueva idea en el Banco de Ideas'), so an agent knows this creates an idea record. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the closely named sibling publicar_bisociacion, but the resource noun is distinct enough to separate the two.

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 alternatives such as publicar_bisociacion or comentar_idea. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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