Automan

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It reveals a payment requirement ('pago x402 $1.2 USDC') and the pandas implementation, which are useful. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, or any data-handling constraints.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The core action and resource appear first, and the payment detail is appended compactly.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description should specify what 'input' should contain and what result to expect. It only provides the action and cost, leaving critical invocation details missing.

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 schema has one undocumented 'input' parameter with 0% coverage, and the description only loosely suggests the input is a 'dataset'. It does not clarify whether input is a file path, CSV content, an ID, or something else, so the agent is left guessing about the required string format.

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 states a clear action ('Analizar') and resource ('un dataset con pandas'), so an agent can tell this is a data-analysis tool. It does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like resumen or extraccion_datos, but the pandas/dataset framing makes its purpose reasonably distinct.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as resumen, grafico, or reporte. The description implies general dataset analysis but gives no conditions, exclusions, or routing hints.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one meaningful trait — 'libre (sin pago)' (free, without payment) — which is useful for an agent weighing cost implications before invocation. However, it says nothing about return format, size, or other behavioral traits. The disclosure is helpful but minimal.

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 a single concise phrase with every word earning its place — no filler. It is front-loaded with the purpose and the cost trait. It borders on under-specification, but that concern belongs to the completeness dimension rather than conciseness, which is excellent.

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 zero-parameter informational tool with an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate — it states what the tool provides and its cost. However, it lacks usage context and any framing for when an agent should select it among siblings. Given the tool's simplicity, an output schema covers return semantics, but the missing usage context keeps this from being complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter information to document, and the empty schema with 100% coverage means nothing is left undocumented. The description correctly omits parameter details that don't exist.

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 states a clear resource ('Catálogo y precios de Automan') and the nature of the tool as an informational lookup. It distinguishes well from sibling tools (analisis_datos, grafico, traduccion, etc.), all of which are processing or generation tools rather than catalog/pricing lookups. It's clear but terse — a specific verb is implied rather than stated.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is a bare statement of what the tool returns with no mention of context, preconditions, or exclusions. An agent must infer from the resource name alone that this is the right tool for catalog/pricing queries, with no explicit routing help.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add a payment-related signal ('$0.03 USDC'), but 'x402' is opaque and there is no mention of side effects, auth needs, response behavior, or whether the operation modifies, creates, or only analyzes content.

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 short and action-first, giving it some structural credit. However, the trailing 'pago x402 $0.03 USDC' is cryptic and interrupts clarity rather than being formatted as a plain cost or behavior note.

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 that there is no output schema, no annotations, and one undocumented string parameter, the description leaves important context missing. It is not a 1 because it at least names the action and includes a cost signal, but an agent would still be uncertain what valid inputs and results look like.

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% and the only parameter is the bare `input` string. The phrase 'Clasificar/etiquetar items' loosely implies the input contains the items to classify, but it does not define their format, separators, supported content types, or expected output.

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 states a concrete action, 'Clasificar/etiquetar items', which clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like resumen, traduccion, and extraccion_datos. It is not a 5 because the kind of items and the output are left generic, but the central purpose is understandable.

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?

No usage guidance is provided: the description does not say when to use this tool rather than a sibling tool, nor does it specify what sort of items or labels are expected. The 'input' parameter is the only clue, but its intended content is unexplained.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool involves writing (implies generation) and mentions payment ('pago x402 $0.07 USDC'), which is useful. However, it omits details about return format, side effects, or required permissions, so transparency is partial.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that covers the core purpose and payment condition efficiently. No filler words, and the structure is ideal for quick scanning.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description still leaves a critical gap: what exactly to pass as 'input'. There is no output schema, and the description does not compensate by specifying return behavior or the expected input format, so an agent would have to guess when constructing a call.

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% and the description does not explain what the 'input' parameter should contain. While the examples of bio/descripcion/post give some context, they do not clarify whether the input is the source material, instructions, or the content to be written.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Redactar copy corto' (write short copy) with concrete examples (bio, descripcion, post). This distinguishes it from siblings like resumen, traduccion, or correccion, which have different intended outputs.

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 no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus its siblings. It only implies usage from the examples but lacks any when-not-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative tool references.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a critical behavioral detail — a $0.05 USDC payment for use. However, it does not state what the tool returns, whether it modifies the input externally, or any safety implications, which matters for an action that costs money.

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 short and front-oaded: one operation clause and one cost clause. No filler. The string 'x402' is cryptic, but this is a minor issue.

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 paid tool with a single string parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description remains incomplete. It does not mention what the tool returns (yes, corrections), whether any system of record changes, or any technical details like supported languages. The payment note is useful, but the operational contract is unclear.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must clarify the parameter. The phrase 'corregir y editar texto' implies the input is the text to be corrected/edited, but it does not explicitly map it to the input field or explain format, length, or language. Some value is added beyond the bare schema, but it does not fully compensate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'corregir y editar texto' (correct and edit text). This communicates the tool's purpose and is not a tautology. It is distinct enough from siblings like traduccion or resumen, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative text-processing siblings (resumen, traduccion, etc.). There are no exclusions, preconditions, or explicit selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer use case from the tool's name and purpose alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the payment cost ($0.12 USDC via x402), which is useful, but it does not clarify whether the tool only transforms the input, returns data, writes files, or has other side effects.

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 a single concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The payment note is relevant operational context and earns its place, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing usage detail.

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 tool with no output schema, no annotations, and many siblings, the description is minimal. An agent would not know what input format to supply, how the output is returned, or when to prefer this over similar data-handling tools.

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 coverage is 0%, and the only parameter ('input') is described only by its name. The description says 'datos' but does not specify what form the input should take (text, URL, file path, structured object) or how the requested JSON/CSV target is indicated.

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 states a clear verb ('extraer/estructurar') and resource ('datos') with explicit output formats (JSON o CSV). This differentiates it from sibling tools like traduccion, resumen, or clasificar, though it does not name alternatives explicitly.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings such as analisis_datos or clasificar. The context of 'extract/structure to JSON/CSV' implies a use case, but no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description has the full responsibility to disclose behavior; it only mentions a payment requirement ('pago x402 $0.5 USDC'). It does not state side effects, permissions, return behavior, or what generation implies, leaving the agent with a very thin behavioral picture.

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 a single short phrase, which is concise, but the traded-off under-expansion is the real problem: the payment note consumes half the text while the most critical input/output details are absent. It is less 'concise' and more 'under-specified.'

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description still does not form a usable contract: it neither defines the input content nor the expected result (e.g., image, URL, chart data). The agent would need to guess or experiment to call it correctly.

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 sole parameter 'input' is a required string with no schema description, and the tool description does not explain what the input should contain. With 0% schema description coverage and no compensation in the description, the agent has no way to correctly satisfy the parameter.

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 states a specific action ('Generar') and resource ('grafico/visualizacion'), so the core purpose is identified. However, it barely differentiates the tool from siblings like 'analisis_datos' or 'reporte' and comes close to restating the tool name without explaining scope or output format.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. The description does not mention preconditions, when NOT to use it, or which alternative fits better, so the agent is left to infer routing from sibling names alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, prerequisites, or return behavior, and it does none of that. The cryptic clause 'pago x402 $3.0 USDC' is not explained and appears to mix payment metadata with tool semantics, which adds confusion rather than transparency.

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 shortozik, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. The opening phrase is clear, yet the trailing payment clause is unexplained and distracting, and no structured details about the report or input are provided.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description must explain how to invoke it correctly, but it does not. The purpose is too vague retics, the input contract is unknown, and the payment reference introduces a significant unexplained element, making the description inadequate for reliable invocation.

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 has a single undocumented 'input' string and schema description coverage is 0%. The description also fails to explain what 'input' should contain, how it should be formatted, or how it relates to the report being generated, so the agent has no real semantic guidance.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Producir un reporte estructurado completo'), so the basic action is identifiable. However, it does not say what the report is about, what structure it will have, or how it differs from sibling tools like resumen or analisis_datos, leaving the purpose only partially clear.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. The phrasing implies a report is wanted, but there is no indication of when this tool should be preferred over related siblings such as analisis_datos, resumen, or responder.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions the payment (pago x402 $0.05 USDC) and the mini-research aspect, but does not disclose side effects, read-only nature, output format, or any potential side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise, consisting of one phrase. It front-loads the purpose and cost, but omits essential details about input and usage. It is not verbose, but the brevity results in under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about input format, expected output, and usage scenarios. It does none of these, leaving an agent uncertain about how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain what 'input' should contain. The single parameter is required, but there is no hint that it represents the question to be answered. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Responder una pregunta con mini-investigacion' (answer a question with mini-research). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'resumen' (summary) or 'reporte' (report) by specifying the action of answering with research, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. siblings. The description implies it is for answering questions, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual cues that would help an agent decide between this and related tools like 'resumen' or 'reporte'.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral context. It does disclose a payment/cost element ('pago x402 $0.05 USDC'), which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not describe the output format, side effects, or any requirements beyond the fee.

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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the cost detail without any wasted words.

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?

Although the tool is simple, the description omits essential operational details: what the 'input' parameter should contain, what the output summary will look like, and how the payment is triggered. With no output schema, these details are needed for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the single 'input' parameter is undocumented by the schema. The description hints that the input is a document or article, but it does not clarify whether this should be raw text, a URL, a file path, or what language or format is expected.

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 states a specific verb ('Resumir') and resource ('documento o articulo'), making the tool's core purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools, but the summarization action is reasonably distinct from translation, classification, and data analysis.

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 implies the tool should be used for summarizing documents or articles, but it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or what sibling tool might be a better alternative. The intended context is clear, but exclusions and alternatives are absent.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a cost ('pago x402 $0.6 USDC') but does not explain whether the tool executes code, what output format is returned, whether it calls external systems, or what side effects may occur. This is minimal insight for a tool with no annotation support.

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 very short and front-loaded with the core action. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete. The payment detail may be relevant, but several important elements are missing, so the brevity is not a strength.

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 one-parameter tool, the description still leaves too much unstated: what language or type of snippet, how the input should be phrased, what output the agent should expect, and how the payment affects invocation. The presence of an output schema could reduce this burden, but none exists.

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 schema has one parameter, 'input', with no description and 0% schema description coverage. The tool description does not explain what should go in 'input' beyond an implied request for a snippet. With such low schema coverage, the description was expected to compensate, and it does not.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Escribir un snippet o script pequeno'. It is not a tautology and gives the agent a basic sense of the tool's purpose Among the siblings, this is the only one obviously aimed at writing code snippets, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from content-generation tools like copy_corto.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions the write action and a payment, but no context, conditions, exclusions, or preferred use cases. An agent must infer that this tool is appropriate for code-generation requests.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals the $0.08 USDC payment; it does not explain how languages are specified, what the output looks like, or any constraints on the translation behavior.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant content, and the cost disclosure is useful. It is appropriately short, though it sacrifices needed detail for brevity.

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, no annotations, and a single poorly explained parameter, the description lacks enough context for reliable invocation. The language-selection mechanism is missing entirely, which is a critical gap for a translation 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description barely compensates. It implies the single `input` parameter holds the text to translate, but it does not explain how the agent should express the target language, leaving the parameter ambiguous.

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 identifies a specific operation: 'Traducir texto entre idiomas' (translate text between languages). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like resumen, correccion, and copy_corto, though it does not specify how language pairs are selected.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of source/target language requirements. The only additional context is the payment note, which does not help an agent decide when to invoke it.

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