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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention a cost ('x402: 0.002 USDC on Base, pay-per-use'), which is a useful transparency note, and hints that the tool detects rather than modifies text. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the output format is, or any side effects. The lack of annotations makes this a significant gap.

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 very concise, consisting of a single sentence plus a cost note. It front-loads the core purpose and quickly covers the parameter and pricing. There is zero fluff, and every element earns its place. The structure is effective for a simple tool.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return value or how to interpret results, which is critical for an agent to know what the moderation output looks like. It also omits any error conditions or language expectations. The cost note is helpful, but overall the description leaves too much unspecified.

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 input schema's description is generic ('service input'), so the tool description adds meaningful semantics by specifying 'input=texto a moderar'. This clarifies exactly what the parameter expects, providing critical meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100% but the schema description is vague, the description compensates well.

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 verb ('Modera') and resource ('contenido') and clarifies the core function ('detecta texto problemático'). It clearly conveys what the tool does, but it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'moderate', which appears to be the English equivalent of the same functionality, leaving ambiguity about which to choose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'moderate' or 'clasificar-texto' that could overlap. The agent is left without direction on tool selection.

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