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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar for transparency is lower. However, the description adds minimal insight about behavior beyond that, only vaguely referencing an optional body and passthrough without explaining effects or limitations.

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 brief, which is concise but lacks substance. It avoids verbosity, but the brevity results in under-informativeness. It is not as well-structured as a clear two-sentence summary, so it does not fully achieve a high conciseness score.

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, the description should explain what the tool returns. It only mentions 'gráfico' (chart) without detailing the response format, data fields, or any side effects. The description is insufficient for a developer to understand the tool's full behavior.

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 shows a single 'body' object but provides no details about its structure or purpose. The description does not compensate, only repeating 'Body opcional' and 'passthrough' without elaborating on what fields are expected or how they influence the response.

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 indicates the tool provides glucose data from Sibionics in chart form, but it lacks specificity about the exact operation (e.g., retrieval, query) and does not differentiate it from other data-related tools. It is somewhat vague, so it earns a mid-range score.

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 alternatives. It only mentions an optional body and passthrough, which are not usage instructions. There is no mention of prerequisites, frequency, or context.

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