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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It usefully discloses the x402 pay-per-use model (0.02 USDC on Base), which is real behavioral context an agent needs. But it omits whether formatting preserves semantics, how it handles unsupported languages, or whether the response is just the formatted code.

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 terse sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by the input format and pricing. No filler, though it could be slightly more compact in phrasing.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the input encoding and cost, but never describes what is returned (the formatted code?) or error behavior. Adequate but leaves a gap an agent would want closed.

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's only parameter is described as nothing more than 'service input', so the description's 'input=<lenguaje>||<codigo>' is the sole source of the delimiter encoding scheme and the language/code split. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Reformatea código según convenciones del lenguaje'), so an agent knows it reformats code to language conventions. However, it doesn't differentiate from adjacent siblings like 'refactorizar' or 'analizar-sintaxis', leaving overlap ambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is provided. The description explains the calling format but never says when this tool is the right choice versus refactorizar or code-review.

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