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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so 'No modifica datos' largely repeats structured data rather than adding to it. The clause 'no vincula documentos' adds a small amount of behavioral context about scope, but nothing is said about what the authorization check actually returns or what conditions produce a negative result.

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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a scope exclusion; no filler. It could be marginally tighter, but every clause carries some signal.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional param, output schema present), so the description needn't explain return values. However, for a status-check tool the definition never clarifies what 'authorized' means in practice or how the result relates to conectar_cuenta, leaving a gap in an otherwise minimal definition.

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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains conversation_id, its omission case, and its analytics purpose. The description adds no meaning beyond that, 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 states a specific verb+resource: it checks whether the host has authorized an account ('Comprueba si el host ha autorizado una cuenta'). The second sentence implicitly distinguishes it from write-oriented siblings like vincular_presupuesto by declaring it does not link documents, though it never names conectar_cuenta as the alternative.

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: an agent can infer this is a read-only status check to call before or instead of connecting an account. There is no explicit statement of when to call it, when not to, or which sibling (e.g. conectar_cuenta) it replaces, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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