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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the output is a short-lived signed URL, and explicitly denies physical work, exclusivity, and NFT. It also mentions a minimum price of 1.618 USDC and directs to a catalog, setting expectations about cost and limitations.

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 moderately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes essential details about delivery, restrictions, workflow, and price, with each sentence contributing information. It could be tightened, but it is far from verbose.

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?

Given no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return value (a short-lived signed URL) and clearly outlines the workflow dependency on receber_obra. It also covers restrictions and price, making it complete enough for a simple two-parameter 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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (obra and tipo) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds context about pricing and the fact that only physical works are licensable, but does not significantly elaborate on the parameters themselves, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the tool licenses a preserved photograph from the FISICA 0001sensations collection. It explicitly differentiates from NFTs and physical delivery, and specifies the output (short-lived signed URL), making the purpose distinct from siblings.

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 provides explicit workflow guidance: it is not the entry point, and users should start with receber_obra. It also implies alternatives by stating NFTs are no longer licensable, which excludes NFT-related siblings, though it does not name them directly.

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