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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does meaningful work: it discloses that the tool does NOT judge, that it returns observed structural signals, rules with their stance, governing meta-heuristics, and a mandatory output format. That non-judgment boundary and the 'consistency comes from the corpus' framing are exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, followed by scope clarification and a reframing line. The second paragraph is slightly rhetorical ('el razonamiento y el veredicto son tuyos'), but each sentence still carries usable meaning.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return shape needn't be explained, and the description correctly focuses on scope and role. However, with 0% parameter coverage the definition leaves the language parameter and the expected code format entirely undocumented, and it never routes the agent against its four siblings.

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 both parameters: 'code' and 'language' have no descriptions beyond bare titles. The description only says 'un fragmento', giving no format, size, or path expectations for code and never mentioning the language parameter or how the empty-string default is interpreted.

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+resource: it returns the WATR standard/rules that apply to a code fragment. The line 'Este servidor no juzga el código' implicitly separates it from the sibling judge_code, though it never names that sibling, so the differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: call this when you want the agent itself to produce the verdict rather than the server. It never explicitly says when to pick this over judge_code or get_rule, nor mentions any prerequisites, so the agent must infer the routing.

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