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 does disclose that the tool returns status fields (etapa, progreso, próximos pasos) and that search is by email or brand_book_id, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, what happens if both parameters are provided, or if at least one is required. It does not contradict any annotations, but it lacks rich behavioral context.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action ('Consulta el estado') and follows with specifics. It contains no fluff or unnecessary repetition. Every word earns its place.

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 status-check tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it states the output (status fields) and search methods. However, it does not clarify whether at least one search parameter is required (both are optional in the schema) or how it behaves with neither parameter. It also does not reference sibling tools, which could help contextualize its role. Thus, some gaps remain.

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%—both parameters have clear descriptions in the schema. The description adds the 'o' (or) relationship between email and brand_book_id, indicating they are alternative search keys, which is a slight addition. However, the schema already explains the parameters, so the marginal value is limited, aligning with the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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's function: 'Consulta el estado de un Brand Book' (check the status of a Brand Book), specifying the resource and the action. It further details what status means: 'etapa, progreso, próximos pasos' (stage, progress, next steps), distinguishing it from sibling tools like brand_book_viewer (which likely views content) and brand_audit (which likely audits quality). This is a specific verb+resource+scope.

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 implied usage context: you use this tool when you need status information. It mentions search criteria ('Busca por email o brand_book_id') but does not explicitly differentiate when to use this versus brand_book_viewer or brand_audit. No exclusions or alternative tool names are given, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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