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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the core behavior (generates configurations/policy cages), the target domain, and the pay-per-use cost. It does not describe output structure, prerequisites, or side effects, but for a generation tool the basic risk profile is reasonably clear.

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 one concise sentence with the main action clearly stated. The 'Auto-created from research:' prefix adds minor noise, and the pricing bracket is relevant but secondary, so the overall structure is still efficient.

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 one-parameter generator, the description gives enough context to understand the tool's purpose and cost, and lets an agent infer what the input should contain. It is incomplete about expected return values and lacks explicit routing to validator siblings, but the low complexity reduces the severity of these gaps.

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 single parameter 'input' is only described as 'entrada', which is semantically empty even though schema coverage is 100%. The description partially compensates by indicating the input should reflect agent capabilities and data-access requirements, but no format or expected structure is provided.

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 uses a specific verb ('Generates') and a specific resource ('zero-trust sandbox configurations and policy cages') for a clearly defined audience (healthcare AI agents). It is easy to tell this is a generation tool, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like agent-cage-validator.

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 implies when to use the tool: when zero-trust sandbox/policy cages are needed for healthcare AI agents, based on capabilities and data-access requirements. However, it does not state when not to use it or explicitly differentiate it from related tools such as agent-cage-validator or zero-trust-policy-check.

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