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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond them by clarifying that authorizing does not link budgets, and the edit parameter notes it does not store or confirm proposals — resolving the main ambiguity of a consent tool.

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 short sentences: the action first, then the scoping caveat. No filler, and the most decision-relevant clarification is front-loaded.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and annotations plus 100% schema coverage carry the rest. What remains thin is the consent flow itself (what the user will see, what the agent should do after authorizing), which is the one gap a caller would still care about.

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%, so both parameters (edit, conversation_id) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about them, which is acceptable at this coverage level but leaves it at the baseline.

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?

"Solicita autorización de tu cuenta existente" gives a specific verb (request authorization) and resource (existing account), plus the downstream purpose (consultar e importar). It also implicitly separates itself from vincular_presupuesto by stating authorization does not link budgets, though it never names that sibling 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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer it should call this when it needs to query or import on the user's behalf, and the note "Autorizar no vincula presupuestos" warns off a common misconception. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-call-vincular_presupuesto or estado_cuenta guidance.

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