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 mentions that Claude Opus analyzes pitfalls and generates a pitch, which explains the internal logic. However, it does not disclose side effects, output format, or any permissions needed. The behavior is partially transparent but not comprehensive.

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 concise, consisting of three short sentences that each add value: the main purpose, the analysis process, and the required input. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids unnecessary details.

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 the tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a complete enough picture: it states the purpose, mentions the analysis, and indicates the output is a pitch with solutions. It could be more explicit about return format or side effects, but for a simple generation tool it is adequately 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 input schema already covers the single parameter audit_id with a description noting it comes from brand_audit. The description repeats this requirement ('Requiere audit_id de brand_audit'), adding no new semantics. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not go beyond it.

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 generates a personalized sales proposal ('Genera una propuesta de venta personalizada') based on a Brand Audit. It specifically mentions analyzing 'fugas' (gaps) and producing a pitch with specific solutions. This is a specific verb+resource+output that distinguishes it from sibling tools like brand_audit or visual_catalog.

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 clear context by stating it requires an audit_id from brand_audit, implying it should be used after running brand_audit. This gives a prerequisite and places it in a workflow. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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