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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the core generative behavior and the pay-per-use cost model ('x402: 0.01 USDC on Base'), but it does not describe output format, side effects, or operational constraints. The truncated sentence leaves a behavioral clause unresolved.

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 meaningful purpose is buried behind 'Auto-created from research', the payment metadata is appended inline, and the sentence ends mid-word after 'ti'. This is cluttered and incomplete rather than concise.

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 generative tool, the description conveys the general idea but lacks input format, expected output, structured cost/usage instructions, and sibling differentiation. With no output schema, the return value is only vaguely described as 'alternativas' and 'consecuencias'.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'input' parameter. The description adds mild context that the input relates to a decision or AI recommendation, but it never explicitly says what the 'entrada' value should contain.

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 states a specific action ('Amplía el abanico de futuros') and a clear resource ('decisiones'), and adds concrete outputs ('alternativas diversas', 'consecuencias de segundo orden'). However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings like futures-expander or horizon-expander, and the sentence is truncated mid-phrase.

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 phrase 'ante una decisión' suggests when the tool should be used, and the mention of an AI recommendation hints at context. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no basis for choosing between futures-spectrum-expander, futures-expander, or horizon-expander.

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