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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuine behavioral trait not available elsewhere: paid x402 access at 0.01 USDC on Base, pay-per-use. Beyond that it says nothing about output shape, latency, determinism, or what the expansion looks like, leaving a real gap for a no-annotation tool.

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?

It is a single sentence, but it opens with meta-noise ("Auto-created from research:") and is visibly truncated mid-word ("confianza ciega en re"), appended with an unrelated pricing bracket. The core purpose is not front-loaded cleanly and the sentence never completes.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a bare one-string input, the description is the only source of guidance – and it omits usage conditions, input expectations, and result format. For a decision-support tool with several sibling alternatives, this is insufficient to call it correctly.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, which sets the baseline at 3. The schema text is only "entrada" (input), so neither the schema nor the description explains what form the decision statement should take, but per the coverage rule the schema is nominally responsible here.

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 names a recognizable function – expanding the range of futures and options a person considers when facing a decision, counteracting confidence-driven narrowing of alternatives. That is more than a restatement of the name, but it is abstract cognitive-bias language with no concrete object or output, and it does nothing to separate itself from near-identical siblings such as futures-expander, futures-spectrum-expander, or horizon-expander.

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 only contextual cue is "ante una decisión" (when facing a decision), which is an implied trigger rather than guidance. There is no statement of when to pick this over futures-expander / horizon-expander, no prerequisites, and no indication of what an agent should feed it.

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