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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose an unusual, genuinely useful behavioral trait – the x402 pay-per-use pricing (0.01 USDC on Base) – but says nothing about cost boundaries, output format, latency, or what happens with malformed input.

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 run-on sentence that is cut off mid-word, so the thought is literally unfinished. The trailing bracketed pricing tag is useful but reads as an appended ad rather than part of a structured description.

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 and no output schema, the description does at least enumerate the categories of what comes back (alternative scenarios, counterarguments, omitted options), which partially compensates. But it never explains input format and is truncated, so an agent still lacks confidence about how 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?

There is a single required parameter whose schema description is only the placeholder 'entrada', so schema coverage is nominally 100% but substantively empty. The description implies the input is a decision or AI-generated recommendation, which adds some meaning, but no format, length, or content guidance is given. Baseline 3 for a one-param tool.

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 fairly specific transformation – take a decision/recommendation and return alternative scenarios, counterarguments and omitted options – which is more than a restatement of the name. However it is truncated mid-word ('estrechamie'), and it does not distinguish itself from the many near-identical siblings (futures-expander, future-expander, futures-broadener, horizon-expander, futures-spectrum-expander), which an agent cannot route between.

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?

It tells the agent what the input typically is ('tipicamente generada por IA') but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to any of the numerous alternative expander tools. With this many competing siblings, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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