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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add a genuinely useful trait — the x402 pay-per-use cost of 0.03 USDC on Base — but says nothing about output shape, error handling, rate limits, or how it processes accounting formats.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the input clarification and pricing note. No filler, though the bracketed pricing sits awkwardly at the end.

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?

No output schema and no annotations exist, so the description should explain the return structure (what 'structured movements' actually contains) and processing behavior. It leaves the extraction result entirely unspecified beyond the word 'estructurados'.

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 own description for the sole parameter is the useless placeholder 'service input', so the schema adds no meaning despite 100% reported coverage. The description's 'input=texto contable' does clarify the parameter's expected content, but only minimally beyond the bare parameter name.

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 (Extrae) and resource (movimientos estructurados de un bloque contable), which lets an agent distinguish it from generic extraction siblings like extract-json or extraer-tablas-pdf by domain. It's clear but offers no explicit differentiation from those siblings.

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 indication of when to use this versus the many extraction/OCR siblings, nor any prerequisites or context. The only usage hint is the terse 'input=texto contable', which restates the schema rather than guiding selection.

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